WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS

2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS

2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Barry L. Steffen

George R. Carter

Marge Martin

Danilo Pelletiere

David A. Vandenbroucke

Yunn-Gann David Yao

April 2015
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS
FOREWORD

I am pleased to transmit to the U.S. Congress this 2015 report on Worst Case 

Housing Needs, prepared by staff of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). This report—the fifteenth in a longstanding series—provides 

national data and analysis of the critical problems facing low-income 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.

As the nation’s economy gathers strength, we find that benefits are flowing to 

renter households and have halted the recent rapid expansion of severe housing 

problems. In 2013, 7.72 million households had worst case needs, down from the 

record level of 8.48 million in 2011. These households are defined as very lowincome renters who do not receive government housing assistance and who paid 

more than one-half of their income for rent, lived in severely inadequate conditions, 

or both. Despite the modest improvements in the extent of worst case needs, this 

report makes clear that worst case needs remain high, 9 percent greater than in 

2009 and 49 percent greater than in 2003. Worst case needs continue to affect all 

subgroups, whether defined by race and ethnicity, household structure, or location 

within metropolitan areas or regions.

High rents in proportion to renter incomes remain the dominant cause of worst case 

needs. Modest gains in household incomes and demographic factors reduced the 

number of very low-income renters and thereby played a major role in reducing 

worst case needs between 2011 and 2013. Modest increases in the rental housing 

stock also helped restrain increases in rents. Nevertheless, affordable rental units 

remain scarce at the lowest income levels. Only 65 affordable units are available 

per 100 very low-income renters, and only 39 units are available per 100 extremely 

low-income renters. One factor in this affordable housing gap is that not all affordable units go to those with extremely low incomes; higher income renters occupy 

41 percent of the units affordable to extremely low-income renters.

This report also uses new AHS enhancements to explore the relationship of 

housing instability and doubling up with worst case needs. These data show that 

the nation’s most vulnerable renters both experience greater housing instability and 

face fewer housing options. These findings are concerning when we consider that 

12 percent of affordable and available units for extremely low-income renters have 

severe deficiencies. Such facts show why HUD programs that provide rental assistance and spur the production of affordable housing are so crucial in creating stable 

housing for very low-income renters. The evidence in this report demonstrates that 

we have much to do to assure decent, affordable housing for every American family.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS iii

FOREWORD SUMMARY
iv WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS
CONTENTS

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS

2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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

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

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2013 ......................................................................1

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

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

Increase in Worst Case Needs........................................................................3

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

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity.......................................................4

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

Housing Instability, Doubling Up, and Worst Case Needs ...............................7

Summary................................................................................................................9

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing .......................................................... 11

Geography of Worst Case Needs ......................................................................... 11

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region 

and Metropolitan Location..................................................................... 11

How the Market Allocates Affordable Housing on a National Basis...............13

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the National Rental Stock............14

Rental Stock by Income ................................................................................15

Geography of Supply............................................................................................16

Geographic Variation in Utility Costs .............................................................17

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location..........................................................17

Rental Stock by Region.................................................................................18

Summary..............................................................................................................19

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS v

CONTENTS SUMMARY
Section 3. Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs.................................21

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand..............................................................21

Affordable Housing Supply and Demand..............................................................23

Concluding Summary...........................................................................................24

Literature Cited.........................................................................................................27

Appendix A. Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of 

Affordable Housing...........................................................................................29

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits.......................................................................61

Appendix C. Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................63

Appendix D. Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs ..................65

Appendix E. Data and Methodology ......................................................................67

vi WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

CONTENTS

vi
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 

2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finds that worst case 

housing needs decreased during the 2011-to-2013 period but persist at high 

levels across demographic groups, household types, and regions. Substantial 

unmet needs for affordable rental housing remain even as economic conditions 

are improving. The unmet need for decent, safe, and affordable rental housing 

continues to outpace the ability of federal, state, and local governments to supply 

housing assistance.

Worst case needs are defined as renters with very low incomes—below 50 percent 

of the Area Median Income (AMI)—who do not receive government housing 

assistance and who pay more than one-half of their income for rent, live in severely 

inadequate conditions, or both. Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to 

Congress examines the causes of and trends in worst case needs, using the most 

recent data from the American Housing Survey.1

Worst Case Needs Have Decreased

The number of renter households with worst case needs decreased to 7.7 million 

in 2013 from the record high of 8.5 million in 2011, ending a sustained period of 

large increases. The number of worst case needs in 2013 is 9 percent lower than in 

2011, yet it remains 9 percent greater than in 2009 and 49 percent greater than in 

2003. 

The likelihood that a very low-income renter household had worst case needs 

decreased from 44 percent in 2011 to 42 percent in 2013, about the same as in 

2009. The decrease in worst case needs between 2011 and 2013 reflects both a 

smaller population of susceptible very low-income renters and a lower prevalence of 

severe housing problems among that population. The data suggest that the nation’s 

ongoing economic recovery is beginning to have beneficial effects on the incomes 

and housing problems of very low-income renters.

1

 This Executive Summary and report are based on the Census Bureau’s February 2015 release of the 2013 American Housing Survey. Estimates may differ slightly from those of the Executive Summary published in February 2015.

vii
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Worst Case Needs Affect All 

Demographic Groups and 

Household Types

Worst case needs affect very low-income renters across racial and 

ethnic groups. The prevalence of worst case needs among such 

renters during 2013 was 44 percent for non-Hispanic Whites and 

Hispanics, 35 percent for non-Hispanic Blacks, and 42 percent for 

others. Worst case needs decreased between 2011 and 2013 for 

non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics but not 

for others.

Worst case needs also affect all types of households. In 2013, 

2.8 million families with children, 1.5 million elderly households 

without children, 2.7 million “other nonfamily” households 

(unrelated people sharing housing), and 0.7 million “other family” 

households experienced worst case needs. 

Compared with 2011 levels, worst case needs in 2013 decreased within the two largest categories—families with children 

and other nonfamily households—but changed little for the other 

categories. The proportion of very low-income renters with worst 

case needs in 2013 ranged somewhat narrowly from a high of 46 

percent for other nonfamily households to 43 percent for other 

family households, 40 percent for families with children, and 37 

percent for elderly households without children.

About one in seven renters with worst case needs—14 

percent—included a nonelderly person with disabilities. The 1.1 

million such households are 17 percent fewer than in 2011 but 

remain 10 percent above the 2009 estimate. 

Worst Case Needs Result From a 

Shortage of Affordable Rental Housing

Among worst case needs, most are caused by severe rent 

burdens—paying more than one-half of income for rent. Inadequate housing caused only 3 percent of worst case needs. 

A decline by 1 million during 2011 to 2013 in the number of very 

low-income renters who lack housing assistance—the group at 

risk of experiencing worst case needs—explains about 520,000 

cases of the 750,000 reduction in worst case needs. Four 

contradictory demographic factors affected the size of the at-risk 

group. Two factors contributed to an increase in worst case needs 

by 300,000 cases: a modest level of household formation and an 

ongoing (though slowing) shift from homeownership to renting. 

These factors were more than offset by two other demographic 

factors that contributed to declines in worse case needs: renter 

income increases (and changes in income limits) that raised 

renters out of the very low-income population and, to a lesser 

extent, a mitigation of the gap in rental assistance, which together 

accounted for 820,000 fewer worst case needs in 2013.

Having fewer unassisted, very low-income renters means having 

less demand for affordable units. Even if the housing supply were 

unchanged, we would expect decreased competition for affordable units, decreasing rents, and decreasing prevalence of worst 

case needs. The reduction in very low-income renters reflects, 

in part, the 7.2-percent increase in the median renter’s income 

over the 2011-to-2013 period. Further, because median rent 

increased only 1.0 percent, rent burdens decreased for many 

households. For these reasons, market-driven reductions in the 

proportion of unassisted very low-income renters with worst case 

needs account for a further decrease of 230,000 cases beyond 

the 520,000 attributed to demographic factors. 

Modest expansions of the overall number of rental units were 

less important than household income and other demographic 

factors in affecting worst case needs. Although the total supply 

of rental units increased by 920,000, or 2.1 percent, between 

2011 and 2013, renter households expanded by 1.43 million, 

or 3.7 percent. As a result, new renters absorbed all the net 

increase of rental units and also occupied 510,000 previously 

vacant units. The rental vacancy rate declined from 9.8 to 8.4 

percent as the rental market tightened.

Although the number of renters increased overall, the number 

of renters with extremely low incomes (0 to 30 percent of AMI) 

decreased in 2013. An expanded number of affordable units 

became available for the smaller number of extremely lowincome renters, increasing the ratio of affordable and available 

units by 3 from 2011 levels to 39 units per 100 renters. For very 

low-income renters, there was little change in availability, leaving 

the ratio at 65 units per 100 renters. 

Conclusion 

Worst case housing needs are a national problem. They have 

expanded dramatically during the past decade and were 

exacerbated by the economic recession and associated collapse 

of the housing market, which reduced homeownership through 

foreclosures and increased demand for renting. During the 

most recent 2-year period, 2011 to 2013, worst case needs 

decreased modestly but significantly. The improvement is 

attributable primarily to demographic and economic factors—

especially increasing renter incomes—that reduced the number 

of susceptible households. Modest housing market responses 

that reduced the proportion of unassisted very low-income renters 

with severe rent burdens played a secondary yet substantial role.

Even with rental assistance, 6 of 10 extremely low-income renters and 3 of 10 very low-income renters do not have access to 

affordable and available housing units. In 2013, there are 1.6 very 

low-income households with worst case needs for every very 

low-income household with rental assistance. A broad strategy 

at the federal, state, and local levels is needed to continue 

to rebuild the economy, strengthen the market, and provide 

assistance to those families most in need.

viii
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 1

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

SECTION 1

The U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) 

is the largest federal provider 

of affordable rental housing. 

In response to a request by 

Congress in 1991, HUD’s Office 

of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R) periodically 

reports on the severity of worst 

case needs for affordable 

rental housing, as collected in 

the biennial American Housing 

Survey (AHS). This report is the 

15th in the series of core reports.2 

EXTENT AND NATURE OF 

WORST CASE NEEDS

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2013

As the nation emerges from the upheaval in the homeownership market and economic 

recession, HUD examined the 2013 AHS data to understand the current dimensions of 

a persistently expanding shortage of decent and affordable rental housing for lower income households. The basic facts presented and examined in the following pages are—

− In 2013, 7.72 million renters3 had worst case needs (see exhibit 1-1). These renters 

have very low incomes,4

 lack housing assistance, and have either severe rent 

burdens or severely inadequate housing (or both). 

EXHIBIT 1-1. CHANGE IN WORST CASE 

HOUSING NEEDS, 2003–2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

2

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

(PD&R) supplements the core reports on worst case needs with periodic topical reports. For a list of previous titles, 

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

3

 That is, renter households.

4

 Very low income and extremely low income refer throughout this report to the income levels of renters. Very 

low incomes are those incomes of no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), and extremely low 

incomes are those incomes of no more than 30 percent of AMI—typically below the poverty line. HUD programs use 

AMI based on local family incomes with adjustments for household size, more precisely known as HUD-adjusted area 

median family income, or HAMFI (see appendix E). Nationwide, the AMI averaged $63,200 in 2014, placing the very 

low-income level at $28,100 per year and the extremely low-income level at $16,800 per year. All these income levels 

are for a family of four. Extremely low- and very low-income families can have incomes much less than these national 

thresholds if they have fewer than four members or live in areas with lower median family incomes.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Renters with worst case needs (thousands)

5,176

5,992 5,905

7,095

8,475

7,721
2 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

− During 2013, the number of worst case needs began to decline 

after a long period of growth. A 9-percent reduction of worst 

case needs during the 2011-to-2013 period partially mitigated 

the 43-percent increase of the 2007-to-2011 period. 

− The primary problem in 2013 remains severe rent burdens—

insufficient tenant incomes relative to rents. Severely inadequate 

housing accounts for only 3 percent of worst case needs.

− The dramatic increase in worst case needs since 2007 reflected 

the impact of the economic and housing crises, with mortgage 

foreclosures, widespread unemployment, and shrinking renter 

incomes adding many very low-income renters who are vulnerable to worst case needs. 

− In 2013, there are 18.50 million very low-income renters, a 

4-percent reduction from 2011 levels, with a number of them 

experiencing significant income increases that helped them 

escape worst case needs status. 

WHICH HOUSEHOLDS CAN HAVE 

WORST CASE NEEDS?

By definition, households that can have worst case needs are 

households that—

− Are renters. 

− Have very low incomes; that is, incomes of no more than 

50 percent of the Area Median Income (as adjusted for 

family size).

− Do not receive housing assistance. 

PRIORITY PROBLEMS TRIGGER 

WORST CASE NEEDS

Two types of priority problems determine whether households 

have worst case needs. 

1. Severe rent burden means a renter household is paying 

more than one-half of its income for gross rent (rent and 

utilities). 

2. Severely inadequate housing refers to units having one 

or more serious physical problems related to heating, 

plumbing, and electrical systems or maintenance. 

(Problems are listed in appendix E.)

− Housing assistance prevents millions of worst case needs, 

and, between 2011 and 2013, modest reductions of the 

shortage of affordable housing also helped narrow the gap 

and reduce the number of worst case needs. 

− An important dimension of the affordable housing gap is 

that affordable units are not necessarily available to the 

renters who need them most; higher income renters occupy substantial shares of units that would be affordable 

to the lowest income renters. 

With these key facts in mind, section 1 explores the current extent 

and the demographic characteristics of worst case needs—which 

households have such needs and what are their situations.

WHAT IS A TYPICAL WORST CASE NEEDS 

HOUSEHOLD?

The typical renter with worst case housing needs is a family 

with two children, most often a minority family headed by 

either a single female or a husband and wife. The family 

resides in adequate or good-quality housing in a suburb of a 

southern metropolitan area. Earnings are the family’s primary 

source of income, yet their low wages place them below the 

poverty line and in the extremely low-income category. Their 

rent plus utilities cost more than $930 per month, consuming 

most of their reported income. They meet other needs with 

food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, Medicaid, gifts from friends and relatives, and 

Earned Income Tax Credits.

Inadequate Housing and Inadequate Income 

Of the two types of priority problems that make up worst case 

needs, severe rent burden is, by far, the more frequent problem. As 

exhibit 1-2 illustrates, 97.1 percent of all worst case needs renters, 

or 7.48 million households, had severe rent burdens in 2013. Paying 

one-half of a limited total income for rent leaves very little income 

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

expenses, education, and childcare.

EXHIBIT 1-2. PRIORITY PROBLEMS CAUSING 

WORST CASE NEEDS, 2013

Note: N = 13.742 million unassisted very low-income renters.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Severely 

inadequate 

housing only

Both priority 

problems 

Severe rent 

burden only 

2.9%

3.5% 93.6%
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 3

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

Severely inadequate housing alone makes up only 2.9 percent 

of worst case needs. A total of 6.4 percent of worst case renters 

(500,000) had severely inadequate housing, either alone or in combination with severe rent burdens. 

That severely inadequate housing causes such a small fraction of 

worst case needs is the result of a decades-long trend of improvements to the nation’s housing stock. More stringent building codes 

prevent the construction of units without complete plumbing or 

heating systems, and obsolete units are demolished each year. In 

addition, a portion of severe physical inadequacies reported in the 

AHS likely results from or reflects maintenance or upgrade activity 

PROGRESS IN REDUCING HOMELESSNESS

Homeless individuals and families clearly have worst case 

needs for affordable or assisted housing. Homeless people, 

however, are not included in official estimates of worst case 

needs because the American Housing Survey covers only 

housing units and the households that live in them, and 

homeless populations are difficult to survey or count.

In the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report 

to Congress, HUD estimated that 578,000 sheltered and 

unsheltered homeless people were in the United States during 

a given night in January 2014. Most of these, 69 percent, were 

staying in residential programs for homeless people, and the 

remaining 31 percent were staying in unsheltered locations 

(HUD-CPD 2014). 

Homelessness declined 2 percent between 2013 and 

2014 and has declined 11 percent since 2007. Chronic 

homelessness among individuals declined 30 percent 

between 2007 and 2014.

occurring in occupied units. Among all renters, 3.6 percent of those 

with very low incomes have severely inadequate housing, but so do 

2.6 percent of those with higher incomes.5 Nevertheless, the housing stock is continually aging, and severely inadequate units continue to pose threats to the life and health of thousands of renters.

Prevalence of Worst Case Needs by Income 

Because most cases of worst case needs are triggered by severe 

rent burdens, the adequacy of household incomes relative to rents 

of available units is crucial. Among the 18.5 million very low-income 

renters in 2013, 41.7 percent had worst case needs (exhibit 1-3). 

The very low-income category includes extremely low-income 

renters, who have an even greater prevalence of worst case needs, 

50.5 percent. Because extremely low-income households constitute the majority (60.0 percent) of very low-income renters, nearly 

three out of four (72.6 percent) households with worst case needs 

had extremely low incomes during 2013.

Increase in Worst Case Needs 

The substantial recent growth of worst case needs ceased during 

the 2011-to-2013 period. The 7.72 million worst case needs in 2013 

were 750,000, or 9 percent fewer than observed in 2011. Whereas 

2011 had 19 percent more worst case needs than 2009 and 44 

percent more than 2007, by 2013 the increase since 2007 was 

dialed back to 31 percent. Further, the latest result is the first significant decrease6

 after a decade-long period of growth. Between 

2001 and 2011, the number of renters with worst case needs increased 69 percent, or by 3.46 million. Shifting forward just 2 years, 

the increase in renters with worst case needs was 49 percent, or 

2.54 million, during the 2003-to-2013 span. 

Worst case needs also decreased as a proportion of U.S. households during the most recent 2-year period, from 7.4 percent in 

2011 to 6.7 percent in 2013 (exhibit 1-4). 

EXHIBIT 1-3. WORST CASE NEEDS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS IN 2013 

0–30% AMI 30–50% AMI Total

Number (thousands) 11,104 7,397 18,501

Number that are worst case needs renters (thousands) 5,607 2,114 7,721

Percent that are worst case needs renters 50.5 28.6 41.7

AMI = Area Median Income (HUD-adjusted)

Note: Very low income and extremely low income refer throughout this report to the income levels of renters. Very low incomes are those incomes of no 

more than 50 percent of the AMI, and extremely low incomes are those incomes of no more than 30 percent of AMI—typically below the poverty line.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

5

 Severely inadequate housing is less frequently reported to the AHS by homeowners than by renters: 1.9 percent of very low-income homeowners and 0.8 percent of homeowners 

with higher incomes. See table A-1b.

6

 The replicate weights needed to determine statistical significance of changes had not been completed by the Census Bureau in time for HUD to determine the statistical significance 

of observed changes in this report.
4 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

EXHIBIT 1-4. TRENDS IN WORST CASE NEEDS AMONG ALL U.S. HOUSEHOLDS

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

All households (millions) 105.87 108.9 110.72 111.86 115.08 116.03

Renters with worst case needs (millions) 5.18 5.99 5.91 7.10 8.48 7.72

Worst case needs as percent of all households 4.89 5.50 5.33 6.34 7.36 6.65

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Because the problem of worst case needs is primarily one of a 

scarcity of units with affordable rents relative to the number of renters with very low incomes, the balance of section 1 examines the 

demographics of the renters who have these problems. Section 2 

explores the dimensions of the inadequate supply of affordable 

rental units, and section 3 summarizes and integrates supply and 

demand issues to shed light on the root causes and shifting dimensions of this national problem.

Demographics of Worst Case Needs 

Worst case needs are an economic reality for many of the nation’s 

very low-income renters. The severe housing problems that trigger 

worst case needs are widespread for such households, yet notable 

variations exist among subgroups of the population.

Exhibit 1-5 shows population subgroups defined either on the basis 

of race and ethnicity (gray markers) or on the basis of household 

structure (blue markers). The position of the markers reflects each 

subgroup’s share of very low-income renters and the rate at which 

such renters experience worst case needs. As a share of very 

low-income renters, the subgroups span a range of 38 percentage 

points. The subgroups span a somewhat narrower range of 30 percentage points regarding the proportion of very low-income renters 

with worst case needs.

The subgroups that appear in the upper right quarter of this chart 

would generally be expected to have majority shares of worst case 

needs because they combine larger populations of vulnerable renters with greater prevalence of worst case needs. Such subgroups 

include non-Hispanic Whites, families with children, and other 

nonfamily households (which include single adults and roommates). 

Hispanic households are not far from this group, because they 

combine a relatively high prevalence with a modest population size.

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity

Worst case needs are found across all types of communities, 

racial groups, and ethnic lines. Among the three largest groups as 

defined by race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic 

Black, and Hispanic), however, similarities and differences emerge.

During 2013, non-Hispanic White renters experienced the greatest 

share of worst case needs—47 percent—followed by non-Hispanic 

Blacks with 21 percent, Hispanics with 24 percent, and other 

EXHIBIT 1-5. DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS BY 

SHARE OF VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS AND 

PREVALENCE OF WORST CASE NEEDS, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

race/ethnicity with 8 percent. Together, the three largest race and ethnicity groups accounted for 92 percent of worst case needs in 2013. 

The share of worst case needs approximates the relative share of 

very low-income renters in each group. Variations exist, however, 

related to differences in the proportion of each group with worst 

case needs. During 2013, worst case needs affected 44.0 percent 

of non-Hispanic White renters with very low incomes and nearly 

the same proportion of Hispanics—44.1 percent. Prevalence was 

significantly lower for non-Hispanic Blacks, at 35.5 percent, and 

other very low-income renters fell between, with 42.1 percent having worst case needs. 

Exhibit 1-6 shows that the largest racial and ethnic groups experienced decreases of worst case needs between 2011 and 2013. The 

760,000 fewer cases of worst case needs in 2013 reflect 480,000 

fewer non-Hispanic White households, 160,000 fewer non-Hispanic 

Black households, and 130,000 fewer Hispanic households. Worst 

case needs edged up among other very low-income renters. 

The prevalence of worst case needs among very low-income 

renters decreased between 2011 and 2013 by 1.9 points for nonHispanic Whites, 4.0 points for non-Hispanic Blacks (eliminating the 

3.0 point increase during 2009 to 2011), 1.3 points for Hispanics, 

and 0.4 points for the other race/ethnicity subgroup (despite the 

absolute increase in numbers for this subgroup). 

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage of subgroup very lowincome renters with worst case needs

Subgroup share of all very low-income renters (percent)

Other family Hispanic

Elderly Families with 

children

Non-Hispanic Black

Non-Hispanic White

Other nonfamily

Other race/ethnicity
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 5

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

Exhibit 1-6 also illustrates how population change affects the longterm growth of worst case needs. Between 2003 and 2013, worst 

case needs increased 49 percent overall but increased only 31 

percent for the largest subgroup of very low-income renters, nonHispanic Whites. Worst case needs expanded much more rapidly 

during these 10 years among the minority subgroups: 59 percent 

among non-Hispanic Blacks, 78 percent among Hispanics, and 75 

percent among other race/ethnicity households. Disproportionate 

increases in cases of worst case needs among minority groups, 

however, are explained more by greater expansion of very lowincome renter populations than by greater increases in prevalence. 

EXHIBIT 1-6. COMPOSITION AND TRENDS OF WORST 

CASE NEEDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2003–2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Worst Case Needs by Household Type

The composition of different households reflects variations in their 

stage of life, income and resources, and housing needs. Exhibit 1-7 

shows that families with children constitute the largest share of 

households experiencing worst case needs in 2013—40 percent—

followed by other nonfamily households with 35 percent, elderly 

households without children (hereafter, elderly households) with 19 

percent, and other family households with 10 percent. 

Families With Children 

The number of families with children having worst case needs declined by 400,000 during the 2011-to-2013 period to 2.83 million—

mitigating the 500,000 increase observed in the previous 2 years. 

The decrease is explained primarily by a reduction of 540,000 in the 

number of very low-income renters with children. The prevalence 

of worst case needs declined by 2.5 points (to 40.3 percent) as the 

percentage reporting housing assistance increased by 1.5 points 

(to 26.2 percent). The actual number of such families reporting 

housing assistance, however, was essentially unchanged. 

EXHIBIT 1-7. COMPOSITION AND TRENDS OF WORST 

CASE NEEDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2003–2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Without housing assistance, substantially more cases of worst case 

needs would occur. Among very low-income renters with children, 

an estimated 1.84 million had rental assistance in 2013 and, by 

definition, could not have worst case needs. Only one in four very 

low-income renters with children receive housing assistance, which 

helps account for the fact that the greatest share of worst case 

needs occur in such families.7 

Elderly Households 

During 2013, 1.47 million elderly8 renters had worst case needs, 

unchanged from the 2011 estimate. The proportion of elderly very 

low-income renters with worst case needs was 37.2 percent in 

2013, less than the rate for families with children and about the 

same as in 2011. This stability suggests that the economic recovery 

of recent years was not of significant benefit for poor elderly households that rely on fixed incomes rather than wages.

Other Family Households 

After considering families with children and elderly households, 

other family households can be divided into those that include 

multiple members of a given family and those that do not. Other 

family households include those such as married couples who are 

childless or have adult children at home, adult siblings sharing an 

apartment, and householders boarding an elderly parent. As such, 

other family households may include people who otherwise would 

choose to live independently but who instead “double up” by moving in with relatives because of economic distress. 

Other family households constitute the smallest category in exhibit 1-7, 

contributing 740,000 worst case needs in 2013. The rate of worst 

case needs among very low-income renters of this group is 

7

 Estimates of the number of rental households that report receiving rental housing assistance are presented for various subgroups in the tables of appendix A.

8

 HUD defines elderly households as those having a household head or spouse who is at least age 62 and including no children younger than age 18.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

9,000

2003

343

390 407

437

587

601

1,035

1,168 1,234

1,582

1,971 1,845

1,040

1,336 1,345

1,640

1,820 1,657

2,758

3,098

2,919

3,436

4,097

3,618

Other Hispanic Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic White

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Worst case needs (thousands)

8,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

9,000

2003

1,901

2,053 2,157

2,401

2,969

2,676

296

324 352

633

801 741

1,849

2,324 2,187

2,734

3,236 2,833

1,129 1,291 1,209

1,328 1,470 1,471

Other nonfamily Other family Families with 

children

Elderly, no 

children

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Worst case needs (thousands)

8,000
6 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

43.1 percent, which exceeds the prevalence for families with children and elderly households. The prevalence, however, declined by 

1.8 points between 2011 and 2013. 

Other Nonfamily Households 

About 5.80 million very low-income renters in 2013 were other nonfamily households, making this category the second largest after 

families with children. Like families with children, other nonfamily 

households decreased in number from 2011 to 2013.

Worst case needs affected 2.68 million other nonfamily households 

in 2013, 290,000 fewer than in 2011. Worst case needs affect 46.1 

percent of very low-income renters of this type, which is the highest 

prevalence rate among the four household categories. Nevertheless, prevalence improved by 3.5 percentage points from the 2011 

rate. Most renters in this group are single individuals, and the rest 

are unrelated people sharing a housing unit.9 

Trends by Household Type 

Exhibit 1-7 also displays how the changing distribution of household types relates to the growth of worst case needs. Between 

2003 and 2013, worst case needs increased 49 percent. During 

this period, worst case needs increased among all household types. 

Worst case needs expanded at a slower-than-average pace among 

elderly households—30 percent—and among other nonfamily 

households—41 percent. Worst case needs grew more rapidly 

among families: 53 percent among families with children and 150 

percent among other family households—although this rapidly 

growing subgroup remains the smallest. 

Households Including People With Disabilities 

Having worst case needs can be especially difficult for renter households that include people with disabilities. Disabilities can reduce 

employment options and create difficulties in finding suitable housing 

at reasonable cost. 

Beginning with the 2009 AHS, respondents were asked directly 

whether household members have any of six types of disabilities, 

including four basic functional limitations—visual, hearing, cognitive, and ambulatory—and two types of difficulties with activities of 

daily living—self-care and independent living. Ambulatory limitations 

(walking or climbing stairs) are the most frequently occurring type of 

disability, affecting 58 percent of very low-income renter households 

that include a nonelderly person with a disability. Cognitive limitations 

(serious difficulties concentrating, remembering, or making decisions) 

are next in prevalence, affecting 46 percent of these households.10

People with disabilities are found among all four household types discussed previously. As exhibit 1-8 shows, 2.8 million very low-income 

DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 

AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY

Since 2009, the American Housing Survey (AHS) has 

collected information about the following types of disabilities: 

− Deafness or serious difficulty hearing.

− Blindness or difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses.

− Serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making 

decisions because of a physical, a mental, or an emotional 

condition.

− Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

− Serious difficulty dressing or bathing.

− Difficulty doing errands alone because of a physical, a 

mental, or an emotional condition. 

The 2011 AHS also included a Housing Modification module 

of questions related to the physical accessibility of housing 

units for individuals with mobility restrictions. Future AHS 

surveys may periodically include a similar module: 

− Use of mobility assistance items such as a wheelchair, 

scooter, chairlift, or walker.

− Presence of accessibility features such as ramps, 

elevators, bedrooms on the entry level, wide hallways, 

or accessible controls.

− Difficulties that occupants may face in using home 

features.

For further information, see Codebook for the American 

Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997–2013 (HUD-PD&R, 2013).

renter households, or 15.2 percent, include nonelderly individuals11

reporting at least one of the six measures of disability. Of the 7.72 million renters with worst case needs in 2013, 1.09 million, or 14.1 percent, included one or more nonelderly people with disabilities. Worst 

case needs among such households decreased by 17 percent from 

1.31 million in 2011 but remain 10 percent above the 2009 estimate.

The prevalence of worst case needs among very low-income renter 

households having nonelderly people with disabilities was 38.7 percent in 2013, down from 42.6 percent in 2011. The prevalence ranges 

from 36.0 percent for other nonfamily households to 46.7 percent 

for other family households. The largest household categories, 

however, account for most cases of worst case needs affecting 

people with disabilities: of those affected, 36 percent are families 

with children and 45 percent are other nonfamily households.

9

 The AHS does not include college students living in institutional housing, but it may include students sharing off-campus housing and other households in which individuals double 

up to share housing expenses.

10 The data about types of limitations are summarized in appendix A, table A-15. Also see HUD-PD&R (2008).

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

Note, however, that nonelderly people with disabilities may be found in elderly households, as exhibit 1-8 demonstrates. Households headed by an elderly person with disabilities are 

not excluded if they also have a nonelderly person with disabilities.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 7

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

EXHIBIT 1-8. WORST CASE NEEDS AND PRESENCE OF NONELDERLY 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Families 

With 

Children

Elderly 

Households 

Without 

Children

Other 

Family 

Households

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Total

Very low-income renter households (thousands) 7,023 3,955 1,720 5,802 18,500

Worst case needs (thousands) 2,833 1,471 741 2,676 7,721

Percent with worst case needs 40.3 37.2 43.1 46.1 41.7

Percent having nonelderly people with disabilities 14.5 2.8 24.4 21.7 15.2

Very low-income renter households having 

nonelderly people with disabilities (thousands)

1,018 110 420 1,257 2,805

Worst case needs (thousands) 397 41 196 452 1,086

Percent with worst case needs 39.0 37.3 46.7 36.0 38.7

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Housing Instability, Doubling Up, and 

Worst Case Needs

The housing market downturn that began in 2007 increased housing instability by exposing households to eviction and foreclosure. 

Some households find new homes or receive assistance, but 

others must double up by moving in with family or friends. Those 

lacking such options end up in homeless shelters or on the streets. 

In 2013, the AHS shed light on how housing instability and doubling 

up relate to worst case needs.

Eviction and foreclosure are decreasing as the cause of moving 

among unassisted renter respondents who moved into their housing units in the past 2 years (exhibit 1-9). The improvement suggests that the impacts of the housing crisis and unemployment are 

diminishing. Both eviction and foreclosure are cited more frequently 

among recent movers with severe housing problems than among 

those without severe problems. In 2013, eviction and foreclosure 

together accounted for 2.7 percent of moves for recent movers 

with severe problems compared with 2.0 percent of moves among 

those without severe problems.

Doubling up enables households to pool resources and reduce 

housing burdens. As exhibit 1-10 shows, however, the income 

contributed by in-movers does little to protect unassisted renter 

households from the severe rent burdens that cause the most 

cases of worst case needs. In-mover income effectively reduces 

the prevalence of worst case needs by only 0.4 percentage points, 

or 51,000 households. These data suggest that for unassisted 

very low-income renters, doubling up does not greatly benefit the 

EXHIBIT 1-9. FOR UNASSISTED RENTER RESPONDENTS 

WHO RECENTLY MOVED, FORECLOSURE AND 

EVICTION ARE DECREASING AS THE CAUSE

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

original household economically, although it may be critical for the 

in-movers who might otherwise face severe worst case needs or 

even homelessness.12

Severe housing cost burdens make it difficult for households to 

keep up with rent and utility payments, which has real consequences for housing stability. Missed rent payments increase the 

likelihood of eviction; missed utility payments increase the likelihood 

that utilities will be shut off. 

12 Previous PD&R-sponsored research, Analysis of Trends in Household Composition Using American Housing Survey Data, analyzed changes in doubled-up households in the AHS 

between 2003 and 2009. Households were defined as doubled up when they included members other than the householder, the householder’s spouse or partner, and minor children. 

Adult children were the most common type of other household member in doubled-up households between 2003 and 2009. Resources of the primary family and interactions with 

family and friends in need were found to be important determinants of doubling up. Households with primary family income below the poverty line were less likely to be doubled up, 

as were those with householders with higher education or who had worked in the last week. While employed people with higher education may have more resources to take in friends 

and relatives who need assistance, because of income segregation, they may have less interaction with friends and relatives who need a place to stay (Econometrica, 2013). 

0%

1%

2%

3%

2007 2009 2013

Severe problems, 

moved for foreclosure

No severe problems, 

moved for foreclosure

Severe problems, 

moved for eviction

No severe problems, 

moved for eviction

2011

Percent of unassisted renters 

who moved in past 2 years

1.0%

1.7%

1.2%

1.0%

2.4%

1.7%

0.6%

0.9% 0.7% 0.8%

2.0%

1.2%
8 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

EXHIBIT 1-10. INCOME OF IN-MOVERS DOES LITTLE TO REDUCE PREVALENCE OF WORST CASE NEEDS 

AMONG UNASSISTED VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS WHO DOUBLE UP, 2013 

Worst Case Needs Standard Measurement, 

Including In-Mover Income

Measured Without 

In-Mover Income Impact of In-Mover Income 

Percent 56.2 56.6 – 0.4

Number (thousands) 7,721 7,772 – 51

Note: N = 13.706 million unassisted very low-income renters.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Exhibit 1-11 shows how common housing instability is for renters 

with worst case needs. Among unassisted extremely low-income 

renters with severe problems, 6 percent missed one rent payment 

and another 6 percent missed two or three rent payments in the 

past 3 months, 3 percent had their utilities shut off, and 3 percent 

were threatened with eviction. Housing instability is only slightly 

less prevalent for those in the next higher income group of 30 to 

50 percent of AMI, but missed rent payments are more likely to be 

episodic rather than chronic. While renters with incomes at 50+ 

percent of AMI were less likely to miss rent payments and have their 

utilities shut off, they were just as likely as very low-income renters 

to be threatened with eviction.

Severe housing problems are associated with significantly greater 

housing instability. For unassisted extremely low-income households, having severe housing problems increases the likelihood of 

missing one rent payment by 155 percent, of missing two or three 

payments by 84 percent, and of being threatened with eviction by 

58 percent.

EXHIBIT 1-11. RISK OF HOUSING INSTABILITY FOR 

UNASSISTED RENTERS WITH SEVERE HOUSING 

PROBLEMS INCREASES AT LOWEST INCOMES, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Just as households at different income levels vary on their risk of 

eviction, they also vary in their perception of their housing options 

after eviction (exhibit 1-12). Most renters with incomes above 30 

percent of AMI report that they would simply find a new home if 

evicted. Extremely low-income renters are more likely to say that 

they would move in with family (30 percent) or friends (10 percent). 

Further, 4.6 percent of extremely low-income renters report that 

they would be forced to find homeless shelters if evicted, twice the 

rate of those with incomes of 30 to 50 percent of AMI and five times 

the rate of those with higher incomes. 

EXHIBIT 1-12. PERCEIVED HOUSING OPTIONS 

OF UNASSISTED RENTERS IF THEY SHOULD 

BE EVICTED, BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Missed only one 

rent payment 

(past 3 months)

Missed two to 

three rent payments (past 

3 months)

Received notice 

and utilities were 

shut off

Threatened with 

eviction

Percent of renter households 

in income category

Income 0–30% AMI Income 30–50% AMI Income 50+% AMI

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0–30% AMI 

(N = 7.440 million)

30–50% AMI 

(N = 6.302 million)

50+% AMI 

(N = 21.002 million)

Percent of households in income category

Income relative to Area Median Income (AMI)

Different places or 

not reported

Shelter Friends Family New home

43.3%

56.3%

65.3%

30.1%

25.3%

18.2% 10.0%

4.6% 8.6% 7.7%

2.0% 0.9% 12.0% 7.9% 8.1%
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

9

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

Summary

Despite improvements since 2011, worst case needs for afford-

able rental housing remain a serious national problem. Of the 18.50 

million very low-income renters susceptible to severe rent bur-

dens and severely inadequate housing in 2013, 7.72 million—41.7 

percent—faced one or both problems without housing assistance. 

The number of worst case needs declined 9 percent since 2011, 

partially mitigating increases of 19 percent between 2009 and 2011 

and 44 percent between 2007 and 2011. Nevertheless, the nation 

has 49 percent more worst case needs in 2013 than in 2003, or 

2.54 million households. The percentage of U.S. households with 

worst case needs was 6.7 percent in 2013 compared with 4.9 

percent in 2003. 

Severely inadequate housing continues to be a relatively minor 

cause of worst case needs. In 2013, severely inadequate housing 

alone triggered only 2.9 percent of worst case needs, whereas 97.1 

percent of worst case needs households had severe rent burdens, 

including 3.5 percent that had both types of housing problems. Re-

flecting the importance of severe rent burdens as a cause of worst 

case needs, nearly three out of four households with worst case 

needs (72.6 percent) had extremely low incomes during 2013. 

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

household composition examined are exempt from worst case 

needs. Nevertheless, the prevalence rate decreased between 2011 

and 2013 by 4.0 points for non-Hispanic Blacks, 1.9 points for 

non-Hispanic Whites, 1.3 points for Hispanics, and 0.4 points for 

the other race/ethnicity subgroup (despite the absolute increase in 

numbers for this subgroup). The decrease in prevalence for nonHispanic Blacks erased the 3.0 point increase observed during 

2009 to 2011. 

Among very low-income renters, worst case needs affect 40.3 per-

cent of families with children, 37.2 percent of elderly households, 

43.1 percent of other family households, and 46.1 percent of other 

nonfamily households. Families with children account for the great-

est share of worst case needs—40 percent—followed by other 

nonfamily households with 35 percent. 

Worst case needs affected 38.7 percent of very low-income renters 

reporting nonelderly people with disabilities in 2013, slightly less 

than the 41.7 percent prevalence among very low-income renters 

overall. Households having nonelderly people with disabilities ac-

counted for 14.1 percent of worst case needs. 

Section 2 examines how the broad problem of worst case needs 

is caused by shortages of affordable housing and is mitigated by 

assisted housing in national and regional markets.
10 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS
SECTION 2

SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The supply of rental units that are affordable to very low-income renters, especially 

those with extremely low incomes, is inadequate. Nationwide, only 65 affordable units 

exist for every 100 extremely low-income renters. The presence of higher income renters in units that are affordable to extremely low-income renters worsens this shortage. 

Only 39 affordable units are available for occupancy for every 100 extremely lowincome renters. A final blow is that a significant portion of the affordable and available 

stock is physically inadequate and may pose threats to occupants. The geography of 

worst case needs and housing assistance sets a foundation for understanding competition for affordable rental housing and the shortages that result. 

Geography of Worst Case Needs

Housing markets are local markets. To a greater extent than wealthier renters, very 

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

to those in their current communities and neighborhoods.

As a relatively small national survey, the American Housing Survey does not support 

biennial estimates of worst case needs for most individual metropolitan areas.13 It does, 

however, support an examination of three types of metropolitan locations—central 

city, suburb, and nonmetropolitan or rural areas—and of four geographic regions—the 

Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. This analysis by regional and metropolitan status, although at a macro level, adds considerable depth to the national picture of worst 

case needs.

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region 

and Metropolitan Location

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

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

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

renters with housing assistance. Examining the spatial distribution of housing assistance14 and of worst case needs together provides information about the extent to 

which assistance is mitigating severe housing problems.

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

national AHS. In 2011, the national AHS began incorporating metropolitan oversamples to provide consistent data on 

the larger areas over time.

14 AHS questions about receipt of rental assistance are designed to focus on federal housing assistance programs. 

These data result in an estimate of 4.76 million self-reported very low-income households with housing assistance 

that is comparable to HUD’ s program total. See the discussion of housing assistance status in appendix E.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 11

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY
12 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-1 shows the distribution of the nation’s 18.50 million 

very low-income renters across the four census regions and three 

metropolitan categories. On a regional basis, most very low-income 

renters—6.35 million—live in the South, 4.65 million live in the 

West, 3.80 million live in the Northeast, and 3.69 million live in the 

Midwest.

Central cities are home to most (8.50 million) very low-income renters, followed by suburbs15 (6.58 million) and nonmetropolitan areas 

(3.42 million).16

Like very low-income renters, worst case needs are common in 

every region and metropolitan category across the nation. As a 

national average, 41.7 percent of very low-income renters have 

worst case needs. The prevalence of worst case needs among very 

low-income renters is greater than the national average in the West 

and in suburbs and is somewhat less than average in the Midwest 

and in nonmetropolitan areas.

Exhibit 2-1 also demonstrates the important role housing assistance plays in reducing worst case needs. Nationwide, 4.76 million 

very low-income renters—25.7 percent—report receiving housing assistance compared with the 41.7 percent having worst case 

needs. Thus, 1.6 very low-income renters have worst case needs 

for every 1 that is assisted, an improvement from the 1.8 ratio seen 

in 2011.17

Housing assistance is relatively less common in the suburbs, where 

only 20.5 percent of very low-income renters are assisted, and 

especially in the newer suburbs of the South and the West. The 

prevalence of housing assistance for very low-income renters also 

varies on a regional basis, ranging from 21.9 percent in the West to 

32.6 percent in the Northeast. Areas that developed during an earlier period continue to draw benefits from an established but aging 

stock of public housing.

EXHIBIT 2-1. NUMBER OF VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS AND PREVALENCE OF WORST CASE NEEDS 

AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE, BY REGION AND METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2013

Metropolitan Location

Region Central Cities Suburbs Nonmetropolitan 

Areas Total

Northeast (thousands) 2,175 1,216 413 3,804

Percent with worst case needs 39.5 43.0 38.5 40.5

Percent with housing assistance 34.2 27.4 40.0 32.6

Midwest (thousands) 1,770 1,122 801 3,692

Percent with worst case needs 37.7 43.0 30.0 37.6

Percent with housing assistance 27.3 21.0 36.0 27.3

South (thousands) 2,531 2,298 1,521 6,350

Percent with worst case needs 40.1 44.7 37.5 41.1

Percent with housing assistance 27.1 17.4 26.6 23.5

West (thousands) 2,025 1,948 681 4,654

Percent with worst case needs 47.2 47.8 42.7 46.8

Percent with housing assistance 23.4 19.5 24.7 21.9

Total (thousands) 8,501 6,583 3,416 18,500

Percent with worst case needs 41.1 45.0 36.9 41.7

Percent with housing assistance 28.1 20.5 30.0 25.7

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

15 Suburbs include a small number of respondents from unspecified areas within metropolitan areas (metro3 = 9).

16 Changes in annual estimates of very low-income renters in nonmetropolitan areas should be viewed with caution, because HUD assigns average income limits to less populated 

areas to accommodate AHS data suppression. See the discussion of income cutoffs in association with AHS geography in appendix E.

17 AHS estimates of assisted very low-income renters rely on self-reported data, but they reflect recent improvements in data reliability. HUD-assisted renters may have incomes above 

the very low-income threshold because they were admitted to the programs under local policy preferences or their incomes increased after program admission.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 13

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

Exhibit 2-2 charts the same data to illustrate the vital role of housing 

assistance in preventing households from falling into worst case 

needs. Worst case needs affect a smaller share of very low-income 

renters in rural, nonmetropolitan areas of the Northeast and Midwest, where housing assistance is relatively more available. 

EXHIBIT 2-2. GEOGRAPHIC SHARES OF WORST CASE 

NEEDS BY PREVALENCE OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE 

AND WORST CASE NEEDS, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Worst case needs are more prevalent in the West and the South, 

especially in suburbs, where housing assistance is scarcer—

although high rents in the West also shape this picture.18 Several 

areas having greater relative scarcity of housing assistance and an 

abundance of worst case needs account for substantial fractions 

of the national problem, as shown by the size of the bubbles in the 

lower right quadrant of exhibit 2-2. 

Not shown in this exhibit are improvements in prevalence of worst 

case needs between 2011 and 2013, with decreases of 4.6 and 2.6 

percentage points observed in the South and Midwest, but less 

than 1 point in the other regions (summarized in table A-10). The 

nearly 5 point reduction in the rate of worst case needs in the South 

represents 350,000 fewer households with worst case needs, 

about 47 percent of the total decrease in worst case needs.

How the Market Allocates Affordable 

Housing on a National Basis

The competition for good quality, affordable housing remains vigorous. Competition affects whether the neediest households can live 

in the most affordable units, the vacancy rate at different rent levels, 

and how quickly new units are occupied. Exhibit 2-3 shows the 

distribution of rental units and their occupancy by the affordability of 

their rents relative to the Area Median Income (AMI). For this analysis, a unit is considered affordable for a renter if the gross rent (rent 

plus utilities) does not exceed 30 percent of the maximum income 

of their income category. Any given renter may live in a unit renting 

for less than, the same as, or more than that threshold, however.19

The extent of competition for the most affordable housing, portrayed in exhibit 2-3, is striking. Higher income renters occupy 

2.95 million, or 40.8 percent, of the units affordable to extremely 

low-income renters. Similarly, higher income renters occupy 38.5 

percent of units affordable at incomes of 30 to 50 percent of AMI 

and 34.4 percent of units affordable at incomes of 50 to 80 percent 

of AMI, which is the largest category of units. Rental units that are 

more affordable are both more rare and more likely to be occupied 

by higher income renters.

Variations in vacancy rates across the affordability categories 

further demonstrate the competition for affordable units. The most 

affordable units are least likely to be vacant (exhibit 2-4). Among the 

EXHIBIT 2-3. OCCUPANCY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, 2013

Rental Units by Income Needed to Make the Rent Affordable (thousands)

Occupancy Status 0–30% of AMI 30–50% of AMI 50–80% of AMI >80% of AMI Total

Higher income occupants 2,950 4,153 6,158 NA 13,260

Same-income or lower income occupants 3,907 5,726 10,243 7,137 27,012

Vacant 371 900 1,502 934 3,707

Total 7,227 10,779 17,902 8,071 43,979

AMI = Area Median Income (HUD-adjusted); NA = not applicable

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

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

housing shortfalls. Appendix B, exhibit B-3, addresses the extent of housing supply on a regional basis. Although enough affordable units exist in each region, the number of available 

units in each region is sufficient to house only 82 to 88 percent of the renters who can afford rents no greater than the FMR. For renters who attempt to find a unit with a housing 

choice voucher, the housing quality standards of that program imply that their success will depend on the prevalence of “adequate” units in their area—not merely affordable and 

available units.

19 Note that renters whose incomes place them at the bottom of an income range would not be able to afford rents at the top of their range. More detailed presentations of these data 

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

15%

Size of bubble is proportional to share of national 

worst case needs (range 2%–13%)

25%

35%

45%

25% 35% 55%

West suburb

West central city

West nonmetro

Northeast suburb

South central city

Northeast central city

Northeast nonmetro

Midwest nonmetro

Midwest central city

South nonmetro

Midwest suburb

South suburb

45%

Percent of very low-income renters

 with housing assistance

Percent of very low-income renters 

with worst case needs
14 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

least costly units—those with rents affordable at incomes of 0 to 

30 percent of AMI—only 5.1 percent are vacant. The vacancy rate 

jumps to 8.3 percent among units affordable at incomes of 30 to 50 

percent of AMI, to 8.4 percent among units affordable at incomes 

of 50 to 80 percent of AMI, and to 11.6 percent among the highest 

rent units. Overall, the recent decline in the overall rental vacancy 

rate—from 10.9 percent in 2009 to 9.8 percent in 2011 and 8.4 percent in 2013—reflects significant absorption of unoccupied rental 

housing stock.20 

EXHIBIT 2-4. DECLINES IN RENTAL VACANCIES AND IN 

DISPARITIES BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, 2009 TO 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Along with declining average vacancy rates, the gradient in national 

vacancy rates seen in exhibit 2-4 also became flatter during both 

the 2009-to-2011 and the 2011-to-2013 periods. Nevertheless, the 

market for units affordable at extremely low income levels remains 

very tight. Greater vacancy rates continue to be found at higher rent 

levels (which include numerous vacation homes). The availability 

of vacant units at higher rent levels shows that in many markets, 

rental assistance in the form of vouchers could reduce worst case 

needs to the extent landlords are willing to participate. In addition, 

the somewhat higher vacancy rate for the units affordable at only 

10 percent of AMI is often ascribed to units that have physical or 

locational challenges and may soon be removed from the housing 

stock. 

The shifts in vacancy from 2011 to 2013 reflect in part the expansion of the rental stock by 900,000 units, or 2.1 percent, as well 

as a decrease in vacancies by 500,000 units, or 11.9 percent. 

Decreases in vacant units while the overall rental stock is growing 

reflect the strong rental demand nationwide. 

Although vacancy rates provide a valuable indication of the balance between supply and demand, they do not directly compare 

the number of affordable units with the number of renters. The 

remainder of section 2 makes such comparisons, employing three 

increasingly stringent concepts to assess whether the rental housing stock is sufficient for the need.

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy 

of the National Rental Stock

The scarcity of affordable units is greatest for the poorest renters, 

but, because of the rapid increase in renter households and greater 

competition, that scarcity is reaching higher up the income scale. 

Exhibit 2-5 displays the U.S. rental housing stock in 2013 using 

AHS data. These aggregate data portray how well the overall stock 

could meet the need for affordable housing if location did not matter.21

Focusing first on all affordable units, regardless of whether higher 

income households occupy them or whether they are adequate, 

the cumulative number of affordable units is shown to equal the cumulative number of renters only for incomes exceeding 52 percent 

of AMI. Beyond this point, more than 100 affordable units exist per 

100 renters—enough, with perfect allocation, to provide affordable housing to every renter with a greater income. This threshold 

decreased slightly from 55 percent of AMI in 2011, but it remains 

significantly greater than the 2007 level of 45 percent of AMI, meaning that the scarcity of affordable units continues to reach higher up 

the income scale than it did in 2007. 

EXHIBIT 2-5. THREE MEASURES OF THE SUFFICIENCY 

OF THE U.S. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

20 Comparable estimates of the rental vacancy rate based on the Current Population Survey are slightly lower: 10.5 percent in 2009, 9.6 percent in 2011, and 8.3 percent in 2013. 

See U.S. Housing Market Conditions charting data, http://www.huduser.org/portal/ushmc/hi_RentVac.html.

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

complexities of local housing markets.

0%

0

5%

40

20

10%

80

60

20%

160

140

15%

120

100

10

0

50

50

90

90

20

10 20

60

60

100

100

30

30

70

70

110

110

40

40

80

80

120+

120

Percent of rental units that are vacant

Rental units per 100 renters

Affordability category (percent of Area Median Income 

needed to afford the highest rent in the category)

Income as percent of Area Median Income

Vacancy rate, 2013

Affordable

Vacancy rate, 2011

Affordable and available

Vacancy rate, 2009

Affordable, available, and 

adequate
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 15

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

The ratio of affordable units per renter peaks at income levels of 

slightly more than 80 percent of AMI. On a cumulative basis, there 

is a significant surplus of units affordable at higher levels of household income. As income increases, renters are increasingly likely to 

spend less than 30 percent of their incomes on housing.22

The situation is completely different at the low end of the income 

scale. Enough affordable units existed to house 65 percent of 

extremely low-income renters in 2013 if those units somehow could 

have been perfectly allocated. This shortage is substantial and 

critical, yet it has moderated somewhat from the ratio of 58 percent 

observed in 2011. 

MEASURING WHETHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

STOCK IS SUFFICIENT FOR NEED

− Affordability measures the extent to which enough 

rental housing units of different costs can provide each 

renter household with a unit it can afford (based on the 

30-percent-of-income standard). Affordability, which is 

the broadest measure of the relative supply of the housing 

stock, addresses whether sufficient housing units would 

exist if allocated solely on the basis of cost. The affordable 

stock includes both vacant and occupied units.

− Availability measures the extent to which affordable rental 

housing units are available to renters within a particular 

income range. Availability is a more restrictive concept, 

because units that meet the definition must be available 

and affordable. Some renters choose to spend less than 

30 percent of their incomes on rent, occupying housing 

that is affordable to renters of lower incomes. These units 

thus are not available to lower income renters. A unit is 

available at a given level of income if (1) it is affordable at 

that level and (2) it is occupied by a renter either at that 

income level or at a lower level or is vacant. 

− Adequacy extends the concept of availability by 

considering whether sufficient rental units are physically 

adequate (based on unit characteristics described in 

appendix E), affordable, and available. Adequacy thus 

is the most restrictive of the three measures. 

The second line in exhibit 2-5 includes the criterion of availability in 

addition to affordability, meaning that it considers whether higher 

income renters currently occupy affordable units.23 Availability 

poses an important additional constraint on renters seeking affordable units; only 39 percent of extremely low-income renters could 

actually find an affordable and available unit, even if location were 

not a factor. 

The paucity of affordable and available units is worsened by the occupancy of a considerable proportion of the most affordable housing stock by renters who could afford to spend more (as shown 

previously in exhibit 2-3). The affordable stock is nominally sufficient 

to house every renter with an income greater than 52 percent of 

AMI, yet the affordable and available stock does not match the 

number of renters until household incomes reach about 78 percent 

of AMI. 

The third line in exhibit 2-5 adds a third criterion—that units should 

be physically adequate—which further reduces the supply of the 

rental housing stock. For renters even with low incomes (up to 80 

percent of AMI), only 91 adequate units are available for every 100 

renters. The physically adequate stock does not fully match the 

need until it includes units affordable only to renters with incomes 

exceeding 124 percent of AMI, a significant shift from the 110 percent of AMI observed in 2011.

Rental Stock by Income

We have seen that relatively few rental units are affordable, and—

because of occupancy by higher income renters and limited 

vacancies—even fewer are available to renters with the lowest 

incomes. Exhibit 2-6 summarizes the three housing stock measures for the standard income groups used in this report. 

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

For every 100 extremely low-income renters, only 65 affordable 

units exist, and only 39 of those units are affordable and available. 

If physically adequate units are required, only 34 units are available 

for every 100 extremely low-income renters.24 These figures suggest that 12 percent of affordable and available units for extremely 

low-income renters have severe deficiencies. 

22 Table A-1A shows that only 10.7 percent of renters with incomes above 80 percent of AMI have either moderate or severe rent burdens.

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

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

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

24 Previous 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 (JCHS, 2006).
16 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EXHIBIT 2-6. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2013

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Income Affordable Affordable and Available Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 65.3 39.0 34.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 97.2 65.2 58.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 136.4 101.1 91.5

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Renters with very low incomes find 97 affordable units, 65 affordable and available units, and only 58 affordable, available, and 

physically adequate units per 100 renters. About 11 percent of 

the affordable and available units for this larger group have severe 

physical problems.

Renters with low incomes find that the affordable and available 

rental stock is sufficient to house them all, although 10 percent of 

such units have severe physical problems.

Overall, the supply of affordable housing improved somewhat from 

its record low point in 2011. Exhibit 2-7 illustrates that the supply of affordable housing stock for extremely low-income renters 

increased by 7 units per 100 renters from 2011 to 2013, following a 

3-unit loss during the previous 2 years. The ratio of affordable and 

available units increased by 3 units from 2011 levels to 39 units per 

100 extremely low-income renters.

For very low-income renters, the overall supply of affordable units 

increased by almost 5 units per 100 renters. The more focused affordable and available unit ratio, however, improved by less than 

1 unit per 100 renters. Indeed, netting out the 3-point improvement in units available at 0 to 30 percent of AMI from the 1-point 

improvement for very low-income renters suggests that the stock 

at 30 to 50 percent of AMI became more constrained during the 

2011-to-2013 period. 

EXHIBIT 2-7. TREND IN RENTAL HOUSING STOCK BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2007 TO 2013

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Change

Income Category 2009 2011 2013 2009 to 2011 2011 to 2013

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

Affordable 61.0 58.2 65.3 – 2.8 7.1

Affordable and available 35.7 35.8 39.0 0.2 3.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI)

Affordable 98.7 92.4 97.2 – 6.3 4.8

Affordable and available 67.2 64.6 65.2 – 2.6 0.6

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Geography of Supply

The preceding discussion shows that worst case needs are dispersed across the nation, yet they can be concentrated in certain 

geographic areas, and it shows that spatial variation in worst case 

needs is affected in part by the availability of housing assistance. 

Affordable rental housing includes both units that receive public 

rent assistance and units that for-profit and nonprofit housing providers offer at modest rents. The examination of affordable housing 

supply on a national basis reveals, first, that the supply of 

rental units that are affordable to very low-income and poorer 

households remains substantially inadequate; second, that 

this shortage is worsened by the natural preference of higher 

income renters for more affordable units; and third, that the 

shortage is further worsened by the physical inadequacy of 

some of the stock. 

The following discussion sharpens that picture by showing 

how shortages vary by geography.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 17

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

Geographic Variation in Utility Costs

It is important to recognize that rent burdens are measured using 

gross rent, which is the sum of contract rent (the amount specified on the lease) plus any separate utility costs. As measured by 

the AHS in 2013, utility costs for very low-income renters averaged 

$112 per month, or 16 percent of gross rent.25 Variations in climate 

and fuel costs over time and across regions can cause significant 

variations in how much utility costs contribute to gross rents and, 

therefore, to rent burdens. 

When measured as regional averages, utility costs among very lowincome renters with severe rent burdens do not vary greatly. Mean 

utility costs among such renters were least in the West, at $105 per 

month, followed by $120 in the Northeast, $122 in the Midwest, and 

$149 in the South. In every region, however, utility costs are significantly greater for very low-income renters who face severe rent burdens. Nationwide, those with severe rent burdens pay 13 percent 

more for utilities ($14) than those without severe burdens.

In every region, very low-income renters with severe rent burdens 

have higher utility costs if they live in nonmetropolitan areas. Nationwide, per-month utility costs for such renters average $159 in 

nonmetropolitan areas compared with $125 in suburbs and $115 in 

central cities.

Utility costs account for a relatively small fraction, 10 percent, of 

severe rent burdens in the West, where newer housing stock, high 

contract rents, and temperate climate tend to coexist. In the Northeast, utilities constitute 12 percent of severe rent burdens, with the 

proportion increasing to 17 percent in the Midwest and 21 percent 

in the South, where contract rents are relatively low. Although contract rents may be less in these regions, utility costs frequently are 

high enough to create severe rent burdens and thus add to worst 

case needs.

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location

Deficiencies in the affordable and available stock are less severe 

in nonmetropolitan areas. Exhibit 2-8 summarizes the affordable 

housing supply for cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. Notably, although cities and suburbs display comparable available-unit 

ratios—with 35 to 38 units per 100 extremely low-income renters 

and 59 to 64 units per 100 very low-income renters—the underlying 

supply of affordable units is more constrained in central cities (57 

units) than in suburbs (64 units).

The difference between the affordable and the affordable-andavailable ratios varies on the basis of metropolitan location because 

losses of affordable units to unavailability are less severe in denser, 

more urban areas. In central cities, about 24 otherwise-affordable 

units are unavailable per 100 very low-income renters. By comparison, 35 affordable units are unavailable per 100 renters in suburbs, 

and 49 affordable units are unavailable per 100 renters in nonmetropolitan areas. 

EXHIBIT 2-8. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, BY METROPOLITAN LOCATION AND INCOME CATEGORY, 2013

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Income Category Affordable Affordable and Available Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Central cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 56.6 38.2 33.0

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 87.8 64.3 56.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 132.5 101.5 90.0

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 64.4 35.3 32.5

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 93.5 58.8 54.0

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 138.4 98.1 91.1

Nonmetropolitan areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 87.5 45.3 40.7

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 128.2 79.0 71.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 142.0 105.9 95.9

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

25 Comparable estimates for 2011 are $131 and 19 percent, but the apparent decrease has a methodological cause. The Census Bureau changed procedures for adjusting electric 

and gas costs to the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). AHS estimates are lower and closer to RECS estimates in 2013 than in 2011.
18 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

A smaller reduction of availability in central city areas may flow from 

the benefits of the more robust and efficient rental housing markets 

within cities. Such markets can offer a better range of unit features 

and price points that offer appealing value to higher income renters. More and better choices for higher income renters can affect 

the availability of affordable housing for very low-income renters 

by reducing the occupancy of the most affordable units by higher 

income renters or by increasing vacancy rates and causing rents of 

adequate units to filter down to affordable levels.

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

between the ratios of available units and adequate units. Suburban 

areas do better in this analysis, reflecting less age in the housing 

stock. Adding the adequacy test reduces the affordable-andavailable ratio by 5 units per 100 very low-income renters in the 

suburbs compared with reductions of 8 units in both central cities 

and nonmetropolitan areas. 

Adjusting the affordable-and-available ratio for adequacy eliminates 

most of the city-versus-suburb difference in the affordable rental 

stock. The adequacy test also considerably reduces the affordable 

housing advantage of nonmetropolitan areas relative to denser 

areas. Even in nonmetropolitan areas, only about 7 of every 10 very 

low-income renters could find a unit that was affordable, available, 

and adequate.

Rental Stock by Region 

Rental markets are constrained for extremely low-income renters 

across the four census regions despite substantial variation in the 

availability of affordable rental units. Exhibit 2-9 illustrates that the 

Midwest shows the best availability, with 79 units per 100 very lowincome renters. The West is worst off, with fewer than 51 units per 

100 very low-income renters, and the Northeast and South have 66 

and 67 units available, respectively, per 100 very low-income renters. For extremely low-income renters, the availability of affordable 

units is far from adequate in any region. Even low-income renters 

with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI find, in the West and the 

Northeast, that not enough affordable units are available.

On a metropolitan basis, adding the adequacy test raised the 

hurdle highest for renters in nonmetropolitan areas. On a regional 

basis, adding the adequacy test restricts supply for very lowincome renters less in the West, eliminating 5 units, than in the other 

regions, which lose 7 to 8 units per 100 very low-income renters.

Nevertheless, the primary point in exhibit 2-9 is that extremely 

low-income renters continue to face severely constrained markets 

across all four regions. The Northeast, Midwest, and South have 

affordable units available only for two in five extremely low-income 

renters, and the West only for one in three.

EXHIBIT 2-9. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, BY REGION AND INCOME CATEGORY, 2013

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Income Category Affordable Affordable and Available Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Northeast

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 67.5 41.5 36.6

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 96.1 66.3 58.5

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 126.9 96.0 85.1

Midwest

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 69.7 41.5 37.1

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 125.3 79.3 72.0

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 149.1 109.9 100.3

South

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 66.3 38.8 34.1

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 98.6 66.6 58.9

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 144.3 105.0 95.1

West

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 57.5 33.0 30.0

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 74.4 50.6 45.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 122.8 92.6 84.5

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 19

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

Summary

Worst case needs are common in every region and metropolitan 

category across the United States. Nationwide, 41.7 percent of very 

low-income renters had worst case needs in 2013. Prevalence decreased by 4.6 percentage points from 2011 levels in the South and 

by 2.6 percentage points in the Midwest so that, in 2013, only the 

West has greater-than-average rates of worst case needs. Suburbs 

also have greater-than-average prevalence rates. 

Utility costs play a significant role in causing the severe rent burdens that trigger worst case needs. Utility costs account for 16 

percent of gross rent for very low-income renters overall. Further, 

very low-income renters who face severe rent burdens report utility 

costs 13 percent greater than those who are free of severe burdens. Such renters also have higher average utility costs if they live 

in nonmetropolitan areas.

Housing assistance, including that provided by HUD, is an important preventer of worst case needs among very low-income renters. 

Nationwide, 25.7 percent of very low-income renters, or 4.76 million 

households, report receiving housing assistance. For every very 

low-income renter who is assisted, however, another 1.6 renters 

have worst case needs for such assistance.

Significant absorption of unoccupied rental housing stock reduced 

vacancy rates from the high level of 10.9 percent in 2009 to 9.8 

percent in 2011 and 8.4 percent in 2013. With 97 rental units affordable for every 100 very low-income renters, not all such households could find an affordable unit in 2013, even if allocations were 

perfect among households across the nation. Many fewer affordable units are actually available to renters with the lowest incomes, 

because vacancy rates are low for the lowest rent units and many 

affordable units are rented to higher income families. In 2013, the 

vacancy rate for units affordable at extremely low incomes was only 

5.1 percent compared with 11.6 percent for units affordable at more 

than 80 percent of AMI. The disparity in vacancy rates across rent 

affordability categories continued to diminish between 2011 and 

2013, however, as the rental stock expanded to meet a surge in 

rental demand.

Because of competition for affordable units, when a simple ratio 

of affordable units per 100 very low-income renters is made more 

stringent by adding availability as a constraint, the ratio decreases 

from 97 affordable units to only 65 affordable and available units 

per 100 very low-income renters, and it decreases from 65 to 39 

per 100 extremely low-income renters. Higher income families 

occupy 40.8 percent of units affordable to extremely low-income 

renters. 

In addition, a substantial proportion of available units are not in 

standard physical condition. The number of affordable, available, 

and adequate units in 2013 is only 58 per 100 very low-income 

renters and only 34 per 100 extremely low-income renters.

Given the scarcity of affordable, available, and adequate units for 

the poorest renters, the efficacy of housing assistance in preventing 

worst case needs, and the surplus of units available at higher rent 

levels, housing vouchers continue to offer an important policy option for addressing the growing problem of worst case needs using 

the existing housing stock.
20 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SECTION 3

UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN 

WORST CASE NEEDS

Section 2 demonstrated that worst case needs are prevalent across the nation as a result of the limited availability of adequate, affordable rental units relative to the number 

of very low-income renters who need them. Section 3 elaborates how the changes in 

the number of units, the number of renters, and the rents they pay during the 2011-to2013 period underlie this result.

The housing problems data for 2013 suggest that the lengthy homeownership crisis 

and sluggish economic recovery from the 2007-to-2009 recession are no longer 

continuing to drive up worst case needs. The previous report on worst case needs 

showed that 1.38 million cases of worst case needs emerged from 2009 to 2011. Of 

the new cases reported, about 77 percent were attributed to demographic changes 

that affected the population of unassisted very low-income renters and 23 percent to 

an increase in the proportion with worst case needs that resulted from the increased 

market pressure of the larger population. In the latest 2011-to-2013 period, worst case 

needs decreased by 750,000: 70 percent from demographic changes and 30 percent 

from changes in the prevalence reflecting market conditions. 

Formation of new households and changes of tenure from homeownership to renting 

continue to put upward pressure on worst case needs. Increases in tenant incomes and 

in the proportion of assisted households among the resulting population of very lowincome renters, however, more than offset the factors that increased worst case needs. 

The decreasing prevalence among these households results from the moderate narrowing 

of the gap between demand for affordable rental housing and the supply of affordable units. 

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand

The previous sections of this report have shown that the increase in the number of 

households with worst case needs reflects both changes in the population vulnerable 

to worst case needs—unassisted very low-income renters—and changes in the prevalence of the severe problems that trigger worst case needs among that population. The 

population of vulnerable renters is affected primarily by demographic factors (including their incomes and, to a small extent, HUD’s categorization of their incomes). This 

population, in turn, substantially determines the demand for affordable housing. The 

prevalence of severe problems or worst case needs, by contrast, reflects the economic 

response of the housing market to the demographic changes. 

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

of population change and the effects of the prevalence of worst case needs to estimate 

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 21

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY
22 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

The population of unassisted very low-income renters decreased 

6.4 percent between 2011 and 2013, from 14.67 million to 13.74 million. During the same period, the prevalence of worst case needs in 

this population decreased from 57.8 to 56.2 percent. 

From these facts, we can attribute a net reduction of 520,000 

cases of worst case needs (70 percent of the total reduction) to 

demographic changes and a further reduction of 230,000 cases 

(30 percent of the reduction) to changes in the prevalence of severe 

problems. The demographic effect and the prevalence effect 

together explain the 750,000 fewer cases of worst case needs 

observed in the American Housing Survey in 2013 compared with 

the number of cases observed in 2011.26

The 520,000 reduction of worst case needs resulting from demographic shifts can be further broken down into four countervailing 

forces, illustrated by the first four columns of exhibit 3-1. 

EXHIBIT 3-1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 

AFFECTING WORST CASE NEEDS, 2011 TO 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

1. Household formation. The nation added 960,000 new 

households between 2011 and 2013, to which we attribute an 

additional 68,000 cases of worst case needs. The household 

formation rate was 0.8 percent during this 2-year period compared with an average biennial increase of 1.6 percent that has 

been recorded in AHS data since 2003.

2. Renter share of households. Shifts in tenure from homeownership to renting account for 230,000 new cases of worst case 

needs. The homeownership rate declined from 66.2 percent in 

2011 to 65.3 percent in 2013,27 as the nation added 1.41 million 

renter households, an increase of 3.6 percent. For purposes 

of comparison, renter households increased 9.8 percent from 

2009 to 2011 and the average biennial growth rate in renter 

households since 2003 has been 3.1 percent.

3. Renter income changes. Changes in income that raised 

renter households out of the very low-income category account for a 626,000-case reduction of worst case needs. 

There were 770,000 fewer renters with very low incomes in 

2013, a reduction of 4.0 percent. This decrease compares very 

favorably with the 12.5-percent increase during the 2009-to2011 period and with the average biennial increases of 3.8 

percent observed since 2003.28

4. Rental assistance gap. We attribute 197,000 cases of the total decrease in worst case needs to the mitigation of the gap in 

rental assistance. The number of unassisted very low-income 

renters decreased by 930,000 households during the 2011-to2013 period because the number of very low-income renters reporting housing assistance increased slightly (170,000 

cases) while the number of very low-income renters overall 

decreased. The resulting 6.4-percent decrease in the number 

of unassisted very low-income renters partially reversed the 

14.3-percent increase during the preceding 2-year period. 

This decrease in the rental assistance gap is the first observed 

since 2003, as biennial increases in unassisted very lowincome renters have averaged 4.5 percent.

This analysis shows that demographic factors, on net, reduced 

worst case needs between 2011 and 2013, after driving large increases in the previous 2 years. The increase in the incomes of tenants was the most important demographic factor, more than offsetting positive household formation and tenure shift. Only 30 percent 

of the reduction in worst case needs remains to be attributed to the 

market response that reduced prevalence of such problems.

26 The demographic effect equals the new prevalence rate times the numerical increase (or decrease) in renters, and the prevalence effect is the increase (or decrease) in the 

prevalence rate times the baseline number of renters.

27 AHS estimates. Annual homeownership estimates based on the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey are 66.1 percent for 2011 and 65.1 percent for 2013.

28 HUD also analyzed whether methodological factors had a significant effect. This analysis is summarized in the sidebar, “Changes in Income Limits Had Minimal Effect on Estimates 

of Worst Case Needs.”

– 1,000

– 500

+ 68

+ 230

– 626

– 197

– 230 – 754

0

500

Household formation

Renter share

Renter income changes

Rental assistance gap

Affordable unit competition

Net change in worst case needs

Incremental worst case needs (thousands)

Increases Decreases Net result
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 23

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

Affordable Housing Supply and 

Demand

Exhibit 2-7 showed that the availability of affordable rental units 

began to rebound during the 2011-to-2013 period. Such affordability metrics are affected by multiple demographic and market 

factors. Some additional data, including key numbers underlying 

the changes in available unit ratios, will shed light on the issue.

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

the availability of affordable units. The total number of rental units 

increased by about 920,000 (2.1 percent) between 2011 and 2013, 

building on a much greater increase of 3.33 million (8.4 percent) 

during the previous 2 years that resulted from significant levels of 

conversion of owner-occupied housing. The 1.43 million new renter 

households absorbed all the net increase of rental units and also 

occupied 510,000 previously vacant units. 

Between 2011 and 2013, worst case needs among the most 

vulnerable, extremely low-income subset benefited from two 

complementary market changes: the supply of affordable and 

available units for these renters increased modestly by 3.2 percent 

or 130,000 units, while the demand was reduced by 5.2 percent or 

610,000 households.

Percentage changes are smaller in the broader very low-income 

category, which includes the extremely low-income subset. Netting 

out the extremely low-income estimates from the very low-income 

estimates reveals that both households and available units decreased for the category of 30 to 50 percent of AMI; the decrease 

in extremely low-income renters was supplemented by a further 

reduction of 120,000 renters with incomes 30 to 50 percent of AMI, 

and the 130,000 increase in extremely low-income units was more 

than offset by a loss of 490,000 units available and affordable at 30 

to 50 percent of AMI. As renters who occupy affordable units shift 

to higher income categories, their units would no longer be considered available for the income category they exited. The data of 

exhibit 3-2 do not suggest that such transitions reduced availability 

for extremely low-income renters, but they may have occurred for 

renters at 30 to 50 percent of AMI and 50 to 80 percent of AMI.

EXHIBIT 3-2. FACTORS EXPLAINING CHANGES IN RENTAL HOUSING AVAILABILITY RATE, 2011 TO 2013

Extremely Low 

Income (0–30% AMI)

Very Low Income 

(0–50% AMI)

Low Income 

(0–80% AMI) Totala

Cumulative affordable and available rental units (thousands)

2011 4,220 12,444 27,806 43,075 

2013 4,354 12,088 26,617 43,992 

Percent change + 3.2 – 2.9 – 4.3 + 2.1

Cumulative households (thousands)

2011 11,774 19,267 27,017 38,867 

2013 11,163 18,538 26,333 40,294 

Percent change – 5.2 – 3.8 – 2.5 + 3.7

Income limit (median, current dollars)

2011 17,150 28,580 44,950 —

2013 16,800 28,000 44,618 —

Percent change – 2.0 – 2.0 – 0.7 —

Median household income (all renters, current dollars)

2011 — — — 27,984 

2013 — — — 29,987 

Percent change — — — + 7.2

Median monthly housing cost (all renters, current dollars)

2011 — — — 816 

2013 — — — 823 

Percent change — — — + 0.9

AMI = Area Median Income.

a

 Total represents all units or renters, not the sum of the cumulative income categories.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
24 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

CHANGES IN INCOME LIMITS HAD MINIMAL EFFECT 

ON ESTIMATES OF WORST CASE NEEDS

A minimal portion of the decrease in renters with extremely low and 

very low incomes between 2011 and 2013, and of those with worst 

case needs, is explained by a shift in income limits. HUD calculates 

income limits on the basis of AMIs, including both owners and 

renters, and then uses the income limits to define the boundaries of 

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

Exhibit 3-2 shows that, across the nation, the income limits for the 

median renter household decreased by 1.8 percent between 2011 

and 2013. That is, the greatest income qualifying as extremely low 

income decreased by $315, and the greatest income qualifying as 

very low income decreased by $516. As a result, fewer households 

were captured in each category during 2013.

To assess the extent to which changes in income limits affected 

the number of very low-income renters and the number of worst 

case needs, HUD produced two tables for 2013 that were 

limited to occupied rental units that appeared in both 2011 and 

2013 surveys and had valid income limit data in both years. One 

table categorized households using 2013 income limits and one 

categorized them using 2011 income limits.

The second column of the table shows that changes in income limits 

could account for a decline of 0.8 percent in the estimate of extremely 

low-income renters in 2013 (compared with the reported decrease of 

5.2 percent among the full sample between 2011 and 2013). Such 

changes explain a decrease of 1.2 percent in the estimate of renters 

with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI (the same as the 

reported decrease of 1.2 percent among the full sample). The third 

column of the table shows that income limits affected the relative 

share of the income categories by even smaller amounts.

The effect of income limits on the estimate of worst case needs 

is minimal. Using the restricted sample, 0.3 percent fewer cases 

of worst case needs are found in 2013 when using 2013 income 

limits than when using 2011 income limits. Extrapolating from the 

restricted sample suggests that changes in income limits could 

explain 20,000 cases of the total decrease of worst case needs, 

which was 750,000 or 8.9 percent.

HOW CHANGES IN INCOME LIMITS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2013 AFFECT INCOME CATEGORIZATION OF RENTERS

Relative Income Effect on Number of Renters in 

Income Category (%)

Effect on Share of 

Income Category (%)

0–30% AMI – 0.8 – 0.2

30–50% – 1.2 – 0.2

50–80% 1.7 0.3

80–120% – 1.4 – 0.2

>120% 2.2 0.4

Total 0.0 0.0

AMI = Area Median Income.

Note: N = 15,281 rental units, weighted to 26.49 million renters.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

The median renter’s income increased 7.2 percent between 2011 

and 2013. To the extent that these are the same households in both 

years, this increase represents a significant gain in income compared with incomes during the recessionary period.29 In 2011, the 

median renter’s income placed her in the very low-income category, but, in 2013, the median renter was found in the low-income category. At the same time, the median rental cost increased only 1.0 

percent, yielding a significant decrease in the typical housing cost 

burden and eliminating a number of worst case housing needs.

Despite a significant increase in the number of renter households, 

increases in the incomes of those households helped to significantly reduce the number classified as having very low incomes. As the 

overall supply of rental units expanded, rents stayed relatively stable 

and the shortage of affordable and available units for extremely 

low-income renters became less severe. These factors provide the 

primary framework for understanding the welcome decrease in 

worst case housing needs between 2011 and 2013.

Concluding Summary

An analysis of demographic and market factors indicates that, 

of the total decrease of worst case needs by 750,000 during the 

2011-to-2013 period, about 70 percent can be attributed to demographic changes that reduced the population of unassisted very 

low-income renters, and 30 percent can be attributed to the market 

responses that reduced the prevalence of worst case needs among 

such households.

29 Another potential cause of an increase in the median renter’s income could be the addition of new, higher income renters. HUD has not assessed the extent to which each factor 

contributed to the result.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 25

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY

Four demographic factors affected the number of unassisted, very 

low-income renters who are susceptible to worst case needs in 

offsetting ways during 2011 to 2013. On net, demographic factors 

reduced worst case needs after driving large increases in the previ-

ous 2 years. National household formation tended to increase worst 

case needs by 70,000 cases, and an increase in the renter share 

of households contributed 230,000 more. These increasing factors 

were more than offset by two decreasing factors. Renter income 

increases (and changes in income limits) that raised renters out 

of the very low-income population reduced the worst case needs 

by 630,000 cases, and a mitigation of the gap in rental assistance 

relative to the need accounts for 200,000 fewer cases. 

The decrease in the number of unassisted, very low-income renters 

represents a quantitative decrease in the number of affordable units 

demanded. Even if the supply were unchanged, we would expect 

decreased competition for affordable units, decreasing rents, and 

decreasing prevalence of worst case needs. So after demographic 

factors on net reduced worst case needs by 520,000, it is reason-

able that market-driven reductions in prevalence should account for 

a further decrease of 230,000 cases. 

The market response is somewhat less tidy than the previous 

sentence suggests. The total supply of rental units increased, but 

it increased less (920,000 units, or 2.1 percent) than the total renter 

population (1.43 million renters, or 3.7 percent). Yet, the number 

of renters with incomes of 0 to 30 percent of AMI decreased. This 

decrease in extremely low-income renters corresponds with the 

previously discussed improvement of the available units ratio by 3.2 

units per 100 extremely low-income renters, with little change in 

availability for very low-income renters. It also points to the impor-

tance of income changes. After losing income during and after the 

recession of 2007 to 2009, the median renter increased her income 

7.2 percent between 2011 and 2013. The median renter’s income 

now exceeds the 50-percent-of-AMI threshold for very low-income 

renters. As median income increased, median rent increased a 

minimal 1.0 percent, implying significant decreases in rent burden.

Worst case housing needs are a national problem. They have ex-

panded dramatically during the past decade and were exacerbated 

by the economic recession and associated collapse of the housing 

market, which reduced homeownership through foreclosures 

and increased demand for renting. The improvements observed 

between 2011 and 2013 offer cause for hope. Yet, even with public 

rental assistance, it remains the case that 6 of 10 extremely lowincome renters and 3 of 10 very low-income renters do not have 

access to affordable and available housing units. In 2013, there are 

1.6 very low-income households with worst case needs for every 

very low-income household with rental assistance. A broad strategy 

at the federal, state, and local levels is needed to continue to re-

build the economy, strengthen the market, and provide assistance 

to those families most in need.
26 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS
LITERATURE 

CITED

Econometrica. 2013. Analysis of Trends in Household Composition Using American Housing Survey Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/portal//publications/

pdf/AHS_HouseholdComposition_v2.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and 

Development (HUD-CPD). 2014. The 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to 

Congress: Part 1, Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. 

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4074/2014-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness/.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research (HUD-PD&R). 2013. Programs of HUD, 2013: Major Mortgage, Grant, Assistance and Regulatory Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/portal/

publications/progs_of_hud.html. 

 . 2008. Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the 

Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/

publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html.

 . 2013. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997–2011. Version 2.1. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/AHS_Codebook.pdf.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 27

LITERATURE CITED SUMMARY
28 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

LITERATURE CITED
APPENDIXA

DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING 

PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–1A. Housing Conditions of Renter Households, by Relative Income, 2011 and 2013 .... 30

TABLE A–1B. Housing Conditions of Owner Households, by Relative Income, 2011 and 2013 .....31

TABLE A–2A. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2013—

Number of Households........................................................................................32

TABLE A–2B. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2013—

Percentage of Households.................................................................................. 33

TABLE A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households, by Relative Income, 

2011 and 2013.................................................................................................. 34

TABLE A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters, by Relative Income, 

2011 and 2013.................................................................................................. 35

TABLE A–5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, 

by Household Type, 2011 and 2013.................................................................... 38

TABLE A–5B. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renter Households 

Containing Persons With Disabilities,* by Household Type, 2011 and 2013 ........... 40

TABLE A–6A. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters, 

by Household Type, 2013 ....................................................................................42

TABLE A–6B. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters, 

by Household Type, 2013 ................................................................................... 44

TABLE A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Worst Case Renters, 

by Household Type, 2013 ................................................................................... 46

TABLE A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Worst Case 

Renters, by Household Type, 2013...................................................................... 48

TABLE A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Race 

and Ethnicity, 2011 and 2013—Number and Percentage .................................... 50

TABLE A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Region, 

2011 and 2013—Number and Percentage ..........................................................52

TABLE A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by 

Metropolitan Location, 2011 and 2013—Number and Percentage....................... 54

TABLE A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units, by Affordability of Rent and Income of 

Occupants, 2011 and 2013................................................................................ 56

TABLE A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them, by Relative Income, 

2001 to 2013 .....................................................................................................57

TABLE A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households, by Relative 

Income, 2013 .................................................................................................... 58

TABLE A–15. Housing Conditions of Households Having Nonelderly People With Disabilities, 

by Disability Type, 2011 and 2013 ...................................................................... 59

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 29

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY
30 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-1A. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Household Income As Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2013 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% All Incomes

Total households (thousands) 11,104 7,397 7,815 6,683 7,274 40,273 

Unassisted with severe problems 5,607 2,114 674 279 201 8,874 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 779 3,185 3,182 1,370 717 9,233 

Unassisted with no problems 1,046 1,011 3,502 4,841 6,236 16,636 

Assisted 3,672 1,087 457 194 120 5,530 

Any with severe problems 7,116 2,237 720 287 205 10,566 

Rent burden 50% + of income 6,937 2,072 502 161 72 9,744 

Severely inadequate housing 445 217 225 131 138 1,155 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,809 3,638 3,327 1,406 726 10,906 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,515 3,403 2,843 952 310 9,022 

Moderately inadequate housing 373 371 416 339 342 1,840 

Crowded housing 173 345 296 159 92 1,066 

Any with no problems 2,179 1,522 3,768 4,990 6,343 18,801 

2011

Total households (thousands) 11,774 7,492 7,750 5,799 6,051 38,867 

Unassisted with severe problems 6,209 2,266 683 210 180 9,548 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 934 3,264 3,218 1,174 604 9,194 

Unassisted with no problems 984 1,019 3,447 4,218 5,159 14,828 

Assisted 3,648 943 403 196 108 5,298 

Any with severe problems 7,716 2,386 712 226 181 11,220 

Rent burden 50% + of income 7,534 2,196 494 98 68 10,391 

Severely inadequate housing 479 256 226 130 114 1,204 

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,022 3,682 3,380 1,199 612 10,895 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,663 3,465 2,880 830 287 9,124 

Moderately inadequate housing 443 403 417 299 268 1,830 

Crowded housing 220 350 300 117 85 1,072 

Any with no problems 2,037 1,424 3,659 4,374 5,259 16,753 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 31

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-1B. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF OWNER HOUSEHOLDS, BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Household Income As Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2013 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% All Incomes

Total households (thousands) 7,354 8,062 11,809 14,162 34,371 75,759 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,402 2,282 1,609 797 589 9,679 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,301 2,496 3,470 2,919 2,734 12,920 

Unassisted with no problems 1,651 3,284 6,731 10,446 31,049 53,160 

Any with severe problems 4,402 2,282 1,609 797 589 9,679 

Rent burden 50% + of income 4,341 2,198 1,486 671 370 9,066 

Severely inadequate housing 175 124 137 131 219 787 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,301 2,496 3,470 2,919 2,734 12,920 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,175 2,260 3,105 2,649 2,252 11,441 

Moderately inadequate housing 153 217 252 193 358 1,173 

Crowded housing 71 145 217 135 148 715 

Any with no problems 1,651 3,284 6,731 10,446 31,049 53,160 

2011

Total households (thousands) 7,576 8,427 12,571 14,910 32,724 76,209 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,887 2,771 1,980 940 591 11,169 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,300 2,432 3,982 3,824 3,346 14,885 

Unassisted with no problems 1,390 3,223 6,609 10,146 28,787 50,155 

Any with severe problems 4,887 2,771 1,980 940 591 11,169 

Rent burden 50% + of income 4,791 2,647 1,811 767 373 10,390 

Severely inadequate housing 185 155 187 177 218 922 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,300 2,432 3,982 3,824 3,346 14,885 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,195 2,235 3,549 3,401 2,864 13,245 

Moderately inadequate housing 149 187 280 294 393 1,303 

Crowded housing 94 137 287 201 132 851 

Any with no problems 1,390 3,223 6,609 10,146 28,787 50,155 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
32 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-2A. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF RENTERS AND OWNERS, 2001–2013—NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Total households (thousands) 105,435 105,868 108,901 110,719 111,861 115,076 116,032

Unassisted with severe problems 13,494 13,398 16,142 16,944 19,259 20,717 18,553

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 19,217 19,790 20,849 22,752 23,225 24,079 22,153

Unassisted with no problems 66,445 66,468 65,362 65,862 64,506 64,983 69,796

Assisted 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871 5,298 5,530

Cost burden > 50% of income 13,330 13,188 16,433 17,140 19,458 20,781 18,810

Cost burden 30–50% of income 16,923 17,856 19,403 21,153 21,818 22,369 20,884

Severely inadequate housing 2,108 1,971 2,023 1,805 1,866 2,126 1,942

Moderately inadequate housing 4,504 4,311 4,177 3,954 3,884 3,133 3,946

Crowded housing 2,631 2,559 2,621 2,529 2,509 1,923 2,509

Renter households (thousands) 33,727 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396 38,867 40,273

Unassisted with severe problems 5,758 5,887 6,860 6,993 8,085 9,548 8,874

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 7,283 7,557 7,303 8,445 8,229 9,194 9,233

Unassisted with no problems 14,407 13,958 13,240 14,455 14,211 14,828 16,636

Assisted 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871 5,298 5,530

Rent burden > 50% of income 6,412 6,477 7,891 7,793 9,000 10,391 9,744

Rent burden 30–50% of income 6,916 7,468 7,502 8,340 8,240 9,124 9,292

Severely inadequate housing 1,168 1,038 1,100 1,073 998 1,204 1,155

Moderately inadequate housing 2,508 2,525 2,542 2,400 2,264 1,830 2,508

Crowded housing 1,658 1,615 1,635 1,511 1,499 1,072 1,652

Owner households (thousands) 71,708 72,254 74,950 75,665 76,465 76,209 75,759

Unassisted with severe problems 7,736 7,511 9,282 9,951 11,174 11,169 9,679

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 11,934 12,233 13,546 14,307 14,996 14,885 12,920

Unassisted with no problems 52,038 52,510 52,122 51,407 50,295 50,155 53,160

Cost burden > 50% of income 6,918 6,711 8,542 9,347 10,458 10,390 9,066

Cost burden 30–50% of income 10,007 10,388 11,901 12,813 13,578 13,245 11,592

Severely inadequate housing 940 933 923 732 868 922 787

Moderately inadequate housing 1,996 1,786 1,635 1,554 1,620 1,303 1,438

Crowded housing 973 944 986 1,018 1,010 851 857

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 33

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-2B. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF RENTERS AND OWNERS, 2001–2013—PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Total households 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 12.8 12.7 14.8 15.3 17.2 18.0 16.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 18.2 18.7 19.1 20.5 20.8 20.9 19.1

Unassisted with no problems 63.0 62.8 60.0 59.5 57.7 56.5 60.2

Assisted 6.0 5.9 6.0 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.8

Cost burden > 50% of income 12.6 12.5 15.1 15.5 17.4 18.1 16.2

Cost burden 30–50% of income 16.1 16.9 17.8 19.1 19.5 19.4 18.0

Severely inadequate housing 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7

Moderately inadequate housing 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.5 2.7 3.4

Crowded housing 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.7 2.2

Renter households 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 17.1 17.5 20.2 19.9 22.8 24.6 22.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 21.6 22.5 21.5 24.1 23.2 23.7 22.9

Unassisted with no problems 42.7 41.5 39.0 41.2 40.1 38.2 41.3

Assisted 18.6 18.5 19.3 14.7 13.8 13.6 13.7

Rent burden > 50% of income 19.0 19.3 23.2 22.2 25.4 26.7 24.2

Rent burden 30–50% of income 20.5 22.2 22.1 23.8 23.3 23.5 23.1

Severely inadequate housing 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.9

Moderately inadequate housing 7.4 7.5 7.5 6.8 6.4 4.7 6.2

Crowded housing 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.2 2.8 4.1

Owner households 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 10.8 10.4 12.4 13.2 14.6 14.7 12.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 16.6 16.9 18.1 18.9 19.6 19.5 17.1

Unassisted with no problems 72.6 72.7 69.5 67.9 65.8 65.8 70.2

Cost burden > 50% of income 9.6 9.3 11.4 12.4 13.7 13.6 12.0

Cost burden 30–50% of income 14.0 14.4 15.9 16.9 17.8 17.4 15.3

Severely inadequate housing 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0

Moderately inadequate housing 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.9

Crowded housing 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
34 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-3. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF UNASSISTED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, 

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Household Income As Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2013 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% All Incomes

Total unassisted households 

(thousands)

7,432 6,310 7,357 6,490 7,155 34,743 

Any with severe problems 5,607 2,114 674 279 201 8,874 

Rent burden 50% + of income 5,530 1,967 473 157 72 8,200 

 [Rent above FMR] 1,548 1,168 419 157 72 3,366 

Severely inadequate housing 301 195 208 126 133 963 

Any with nonsevere problems only 779 3,185 3,182 1,370 717 9,233 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 613 3,007 2,735 928 304 7,587 

Moderately inadequate housing 226 302 382 329 339 1,578 

Crowded housing 102 320 276 157 91 946 

Any with no problems 1,046 1,011 3,502 4,841 6,236 16,636 

2011

Total unassisted households 

(thousands)

8,127 6,549 7,348 5,602 5,943 33,569 

Any with severe problems 6,209 2,266 683 210 180 9,548 

Rent burden 50% + of income 6,103 2,106 483 92 68 8,853 

 [Rent above FMR] 1,761 1,284 439 92 68 3,643 

Severely inadequate housing 343 223 207 120 114 1,007 

Any with nonsevere problems only 934 3,264 3,218 1,174 604 9,194 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 719 3,102 2,749 814 287 7,671 

Moderately inadequate housing 242 348 388 290 263 1,531 

Crowded housing 158 312 279 116 81 946 

Any with no problems 984 1,019 3,447 4,218 5,159 14,828 

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 35

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-4. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS, BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Renter households (thousands) 38,867 40,273 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 9,548 8,874 24.6 22.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 9,194 9,233 23.7 22.9

Unassisted with no problems 14,828 16,636 38.2 41.3

Assisted 5,298 5,530 13.6 13.7

Any with severe problems 11,220 10,566 28.9 26.2

Rent burden > 50% of income 10,391 9,744 26.7 24.2

Severely inadequate housing 1,204 1,155 3.1 2.9

[Rent burden only] 9,243 8,743 23.8 21.7

Any with nonsevere problems only 10,895 10,906 28.0 27.1

Rent burden 30–50% of income 9,124 9,022 23.5 22.4

Moderately inadequate housing 1,830 1,840 4.7 4.6

Crowded housing 1,072 1,066 2.8 2.6

[Rent burden only] 8,090 8,088 20.8 20.1

Any with no problems 16,753 18,801 43.1 46.7

Income 0–30% HAMFI (thousands) 11,774 11,104 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 6,209 5,607 52.7 50.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 934 779 7.9 7.0

Unassisted with no problems 984 1,046 8.4 9.4

Assisted 3,648 3,672 31.0 33.1

Any with severe problems 7,716 7,116 65.5 64.1

Rent burden > 50% of income 7,534 6,937 64.0 62.5

Severely inadequate housing 479 445 4.1 4.0

[Rent burden only] 6,613 6,168 56.2 55.5

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,022 1,809 17.2 16.3

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,663 1,515 14.1 13.6

Moderately inadequate housing 443 373 3.8 3.4

Crowded housing 220 173 1.9 1.6

[Rent burden only] 1,380 1,278 11.7% 11.5

Any with no problems 2,037 2,179 17.3 19.6

Income 30–50% HAMFI (thousands) 7,492 7,397 100.00 100.00

Unassisted with severe problems 2,266 2,114 30.2 28.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 3,264 3,185 43.6 43.1

Unassisted with no problems 1,019 1,011 13.6 13.7

Assisted 943 1,087 12.6 14.7

Any with severe problems 2,386 2,237 31.8 30.2

Rent burden > 50% of income 2,196 2,072 29.3 28.0

Severely inadequate housing 256 217 3.4 2.9

[Rent burden only] 2,015 1,893 26.9 25.6
36 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-4. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS, 

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Any with nonsevere problems only 3,682 3,638 49.1 49.2

Rent burden 30–50% of income 3,465 3,403 46.2 46.0

Moderately inadequate housing 403 371 5.4 5.0

Crowded housing 350 345 4.7 4.7

[Rent burden only] 2,975 2,960 39.7 40.0

Any with no problems 1,424 1,522 19.0 20.6

Income 50–80% HAMFI (thousands) 7,750 7,815 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 683 674 8.8 8.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 3,218 3,182 41.5 40.7

Unassisted with no problems 3,447 3,502 44.5 44.8

Assisted 403 457 5.2 5.8

Any with severe problems 712 720 9.2 9.2

Rent burden > 50% of income 494 502 6.4 6.4

Severely inadequate housing 226 225 2.9 2.9

[Rent burden only] 460 471 5.9 6.0

Any with nonsevere problems only 3,380 3,327 43.6 42.6

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,880 2,843 37.2 36.4

Moderately inadequate housing 417 416 5.4 5.3

Crowded housing 300 296 3.9 3.8

[Rent burden only] 2,678 2,630 34.6 33.7

Any with no problems 3,659 3,768 47.2 48.2

Income 80–120% HAMFI (thousands) 5,799 6,683 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 210 279 3.6 4.2

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,174 1,370 20.2 20.5

Unassisted with no problems 4,218 4,841 72.7 72.4

Assisted 196 194 3.4 2.9

Any with severe problems 226 287 3.9 4.3

Rent burden > 50% of income 98 161 1.7 2.4

Severely inadequate housing 130 131 2.2 2.0

[Rent burden only] 89 145 1.5 2.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,199 1,406 20.7 21.0

Rent burden 30–50% of income 830 952 14.3 14.2

Moderately inadequate housing 299 339 5.2 5.1

Crowded housing 117 159 2.0 2.4

[Rent burden only] 793 922 13.7 13.8

Any with no problems 4,374 4,990 75.4 74.7
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 37

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-4. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS, 

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Income > 120% HAMFI (thousands) 6,051 7,274 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 180 201 3.0 2.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 604 717 10.0 9.9

Unassisted with no problems 5,159 6,236 85.3 85.7

Assisted 108 120 1.8 1.6

Any with severe problems 181 205 3.0 2.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 68 72 1.1 1.0

Severely inadequate housing 114 138 1.9 1.9

[Rent burden only] 66 65 1.1 0.9

Any with nonsevere problems only 612 726 10.1 10.0

Rent burden 30–50% of income 287 310 4.7 4.3

Moderately inadequate housing 268 342 4.4 4.7

Crowded housing 85 92 1.4 1.3

[Rent burden only] 264 299 4.4 4.1

Any with no problems 5,259 6,343 86.9 87.2

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
38 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-5A. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

Household Type 2011 2013 2011 2013

All household types (thousands) 19,267 18,500 100.0 100.0

Elderly without children (thousands) 3,934 3,955 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,470 1,471 37.4 37.2

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 611 567 15.5 14.3

Unassisted with no problems 450 510 11.4 12.9

Assisted 1,403 1,408 35.7 35.6

Any with severe problems 1,891 1,915 48.1 48.4

Rent burden > 50% of income 1,817 1,847 46.2 46.7

Severely inadequate housing 138 119 3.5 3.0

[Rent burden only] 1,631 1,696 41.5 42.9

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,028 1,004 26.1 25.4

Rent burden 30–50% of income 965 942 24.5 23.8

Moderately inadequate housing 125 118 3.2 3.0

Crowded housing 1 1 0.0 0.0

[Rent burden only] 902 885 22.9 22.4

Any with no problems 1,015 1,036 25.8 26.2

Families with children (thousands) 7,561 7,023 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 3,236 2,833 42.8 40.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,883 1,797 24.9 25.6

Unassisted with no problems 577 552 7.6 7.9

Assisted 1,866 1,841 24.7 26.2

Any with severe problems 3,979 3,478 52.6 49.5

Rent burden > 50% of Income 3,847 3,349 50.9 47.7

Severely inadequate housing 269 263 3.6 3.7

[Rent burden only] 3,404 2,977 45.0 42.4

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,532 2,394 33.5 34.1

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,209 2,089 29.2 29.7

Moderately inadequate housing 329 290 4.4 4.1

Crowded housing 545 513 7.2 7.3

[Rent burden only] 1,719 1,642 22.7 23.4

Any with no problems 1,050 1,151 13.9 16.4
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 39

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-5A. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

Household Type 2011 2013 2011 2013

Other family households (thousands) 1,782 1,720 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 801 741 44.9 43.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 465 442 26.1 25.7

Unassisted with no problems 223 194 12.5 11.3

Assisted 293 343 16.4 19.9

Any with severe problems 903 840 50.7 48.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 877 808 49.2 47.0

Severely inadequate housing 57 56 3.2 3.3

[Rent burden only] 764 736 42.9 42.8

Any with nonsevere problems only 573 560 32.2 32.6

Rent burden 30–50% of income 547 526 30.7 30.6

Moderately inadequate housing 73 61 4.1 3.5

Crowded housing 12 4 0.7 0.2

[Rent burden only] 490 495 27.5 28.8

Any with no problems 306 320 17.2 18.6

Other nonfamily households (thousands) 5,990 5,802 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 2,969 2,676 49.6 46.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,238 1,158 20.7 20.0

Unassisted with no problems 754 801 12.6 13.8

Assisted 1,029 1,167 17.2 20.1

Any with severe problems 3,329 3,119 55.6 53.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 3,189 3,005 53.2 51.8

Severely inadequate housing 270 223 4.5 3.8

[Rent burden only] 2,828 2,652 47.2 45.7

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,571 1,489 26.2 25.7

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,407 1,361 23.5 23.5

Moderately inadequate housing 319 274 5.3 4.7

Crowded housing 12 1 0.2 0.0

[Rent burden only] 1,244 1,215 20.8 20.9

Any with no problems 1,090 1,193 18.2 20.6

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
40 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-5B. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 

CONTAINING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,* BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

Household Type 2011 2013 2011 2013

All household types (thousands) 3,068 2,804 100.0 100.0

Elderly without children (thousands) 94 110 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 31 41 33.0 37.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 29 26 30.9 23.6

Unassisted with no problems 9 14 9.6 12.7

Assisted 24 29 25.5 26.4

Any with severe problems 39 45 41.5 40.9

Rent burden > 50% of income 34 44 36.2 40.0

Severely inadequate housing 9 5 9.6 4.5

[Rent burden only, adequate housing] 29 37 30.9 33.6

Any with nonsevere problems only 40 39 42.6 35.5

Rent burden 30–50% of income 37 38 39.4 34.5

Moderately inadequate housing 6 6 6.4 5.5

Crowded housing 0 0 0.0 0.0

[Rent burden only] 34 33 36.2 30.0

Any with no problems 15 26 16.0 23.6

Families with children (thousands) 1,259 1,018 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 544 397 43.2 39.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 260 192 20.7 18.9

Unassisted with no problems 71 79 5.6 7.8

Assisted 384 350 30.5 34.4

Any with severe problems 700 523 55.6 51.4

Rent burden > 50% of income 680 514 54.0 50.5

Severely inadequate Housing 57 35 4.5 3.4

[Rent burden only, adequate housing] 570 417 45.3 41.0

Any with nonsevere problems only 388 323 30.8 31.7

Rent burden 30–50% of income 299 278 23.7 27.3

Moderately inadequate housing 93 50 7.4 4.9

Crowded housing 99 65 7.9 6.4

[Rent burden only] 208 224 16.5 22.0

Any with no problems 170 172 13.5 16.9
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 41

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-5B. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTER 

HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,* BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Number Percentage

Household Type 2011 2013 2011 2013

Other family households (thousands) 403 420 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 207 196 51.4 46.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 71 75 17.6 17.9

Unassisted with no problems 33 34 8.2 8.1

Assisted 92 114 22.8 27.1

Any with severe problems 242 232 60.0 55.2

Rent burden > 50% of income 233 224 57.8 53.3

Severely inadequate housing 24 17 6.0 4.0

[Rent burden only, adequate housing] 182 194 45.2 46.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 106 110 26.3 26.2

Rent burden 30–50% of income 99 103 24.6 24.5

Moderately inadequate housing 21 22 5.2 5.2

Crowded housing 0 0 0.0 0.0

[Rent burden only] 85 88 21.1 21.0

Any with no problems 55 78 13.6 18.6

Other nonfamily households (thousands) 1,312 1,257 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 524 452 39.9 36.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 185 216 14.1 17.2

Unassisted with no problems 106 95 8.1 7.6

Assisted 497 494 37.9 39.3

Any with severe problems 675 639 51.4 50.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 641 603 48.9 48.0

Severely inadequate housing 85 60 6.5 4.8

[Rent burden only, adequate housing] 544 518 41.5 41.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 359 354 27.4 28.2

Rent burden 30–50% of income 321 320 24.5 25.5

Moderately inadequate housing 73 51 5.6 4.1

Crowded housing 9 0 0.7 0.0

[Rent burden only] 282 302 21.5 24.0

Any with no problems 278 264 21.2 21.0

* Elderly persons with disabilities were excluded.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
42 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-6A. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Renter households (thousands) 18,500 3,955 7,023 1,720 5,802 

Number of children 14,413 0 14,413 0 0 

Number of persons 43,636 5,200 27,125 4,139 7,173 

Children/household 0.78 0.00 2.05 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.36 1.31 3.86 2.41 1.24

Unassisted with severe problems 7,721 1,471 2,833 741 2,676 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 3,964 567 1,797 442 1,158 

Unassisted with no problems 2,057 510 552 194 801 

Assisted 4,759 1,408 1,841 343 1,167 

Any with severe problems 9,353 1,915 3,478 840 3,119 

Rent burden > 50% of income 9,009 1,847 3,349 808 3,005 

Severely inadequate housing 661 119 263 56 223 

[Rent burden only] 8,062 1,696 2,977 736 2,652 

Any with nonsevere problems only 5,447 1,004 2,394 560 1,489 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,918 942 2,089 526 1,361 

Moderately inadequate housing 744 118 290 61 274 

Crowded housing 519 1 513 4 1 

[Rent burden only] 4,238 885 1,642 495 1,215 

Any with no problems 3,700 1,036 1,151 320 1,193 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 43

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-6A. (CONTINUED) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VERY LOW-INCOME 

RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household 7,668 2,931 10 0 4,727 

Husband-wife family 3,673 589 2,341 739 4 

Female head 11,376 2,628 5,004 987 2,756 

Minority head 10,280 1,644 4,891 1,083 2,662 

AFDC/SSI 3,614 883 1,421 388 923 

Social Security income 4,270 3,047 500 196 527 

Income below 50% of poverty 4,859 777 2,051 345 1,686 

Income below poverty 10,814 1,977 4,657 796 3,384 

Income below 150% of poverty 15,681 3,081 6,592 1,329 4,678 

High school graduate 13,424 2,539 4,843 1,280 4,762 

2+ years post high school 3,426 613 1,038 342 1,434 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 8,148 357 4,287 984 2,520 

 At least full time 5,829 189 3,273 769 1,598 

Earnings main source of income 9,028 338 4,576 1,061 3,053 

Housing rated poor 1,049 105 474 105 364 

Housing rated good + 13,624 3,245 4,997 1,233 4,150 

Neighborhood rated poor 1,453 168 674 133 477 

Neighborhood rated good + 13,052 3,139 4,757 1,206 3,949 

In central cities 8,501 1,681 3,093 813 2,915 

Nonmetro 3,416 781 1,329 296 1,010 

Suburbs 6,583 1,493 2,602 612 1,877 

Midwest 3,692 816 1,206 292 1,378 

Northeast 3,804 1,012 1,268 371 1,154 

South 6,350 1,200 2,560 608 1,982 

West 4,654 927 1,990 450 1,288 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
44 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-6B. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Renter households (thousands) 11,104 2,559 4,020 816 3,709 

Number of children 8,532 0 8,532 0 0 

Number of persons 24,792 3,200 15,275 1,908 4,409 

Children/household 0.77 0.00 2.12 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.23 1.25 3.80 2.34 1.19

Unassisted with severe problems 5,607 1,072 2,110 472 1,954 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 779 160 310 44 264 

Unassisted with no problems 1,046 251 210 74 511 

Assisted 3,672 1,076 1,390 227 979 

Any with severe problems 7,116 1,487 2,687 567 2,376 

Rent burden > 50% of income 6,937 1,444 2,626 552 2,316 

Severely inadequate housing 445 82 180 32 151 

[Rent burden only] 6,168 1,316 2,303 500 2,050 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,809 468 716 109 516 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,515 424 591 83 417 

Moderately inadequate housing 373 67 118 32 156 

Crowded housing 173 1 172 0 1 

[Rent burden only] 1,278 400 442 77 359 

Any with no problems 2,179 604 617 141 817 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 45

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-6B. (CONTINUED) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME 

RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household 5,207 2,024 10 0 3,174 

Husband-wife family 1,674 317 1,044 313 0 

Female head 7,046 1,734 3,037 490 1,785 

Minority head 6,312 1,191 2,883 513 1,724 

AFDC/SSI 2,742 714 1,023 232 774 

Social Security income 2,660 1,884 277 106 392 

Income below 50% poverty 4,854 777 2,046 345 1,686 

Income below poverty 9,816 1,929 3,834 739 3,314 

Income below 150% of poverty 11,017 2,504 4,018 808 3,687 

High school graduate 7,709 1,530 2,653 600 2,925 

2+ years post high school 1,836 338 520 128 850 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 2,912 97 1,687 250 878 

 At least full time 1,121 32 836 90 163 

Earnings main source of income 3,996 138 2,062 356 1,441 

Housing rated poor 698 68 328 63 239 

Housing rated good + 8,095 2,117 2,759 567 2,652 

Neighborhood rated poor 988 118 476 71 322 

Neighborhood rated good + 7,703 2,030 2,584 569 2,521 

In central cities 5,218 1,137 1,831 361 1,888 

Nonmetro 2,077 449 775 159 694 

Suburbs 3,809 972 1,414 296 1,126 

Midwest 2,150 454 677 134 885 

Northeast 2,454 710 790 160 794 

South 3,821 777 1,454 344 1,246 

West 2,679 618 1,099 178 784 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
46 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-7. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VERY LOW-INCOME 

WORST CASE RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Renter households (thousands) 7,721 1,471 2,833 741 2,676 

Number of children 5,913 0 5,913 0 0 

Number of persons 18,367 1,967 11,122 1,805 3,473 

Children/household 0.77 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.38 1.34 3.93 2.44 1.30

Unassisted with severe problems 7,721 1,471 2,833 741 2,676 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 7,721 1,471 2,833 741 2,676 

Rent burden > 50% of income 7,497 1,440 2,746 717 2,594 

Severely inadequate housing 496 74 195 45 183 

[Rent burden only] 6,689 1,308 2,436 651 2,295 

Any with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

[Rent burden only] — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 47

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-7. (CONTINUED) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VERY LOW-INCOME 

WORST CASE RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household 3,191 1,097 2 0 2,092 

Husband-wife family 1,574 209 1,020 345 0 

Female head 4,610 983 1,945 409 1,273 

Minority head 4,103 590 1,888 458 1,167 

AFDC/SSI 1,246 231 540 147 327 

Social Security income 1,702 1,160 223 102 216 

Income below 50% poverty 2,365 416 965 172 813 

Income below poverty 5,270 828 2,238 451 1,753 

Income below 150% of poverty 6,973 1,232 2,761 627 2,353 

High school graduate 5,782 1,033 1,920 566 2,262 

2+ years post high school 1,684 250 461 161 811 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 3,340 116 1,671 371 1,181 

 At least full time 1,954 56 1,103 243 552 

Earnings main source of income 4,068 126 1,876 447 1,619 

Housing rated poor 460 34 202 57 167 

Housing rated good + 5,593 1,186 1,951 504 1,952 

Neighborhood rated poor 564 63 235 68 197 

Neighborhood rated good + 5,488 1,152 1,992 524 1,820 

In central cities 3,497 638 1,157 332 1,371 

Nonmetro 1,261 219 504 106 432 

Suburbs 2,963 615 1,173 302 873 

Midwest 1,389 269 431 99 589 

Northeast 1,542 387 484 142 529 

South 2,612 447 1,004 270 891 

West 2,178 367 914 230 667 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
48 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-8. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME 

WORST CASE RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Renter households (thousands) 5,607 1,072 2,110 472 1,954 

Number of children 4,523 0 4,523 0 0 

Number of persons 13,276 1,403 8,324 1,122 2,427 

Children/household 0.81 0.00 2.14 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.37 1.31 3.95 2.38 1.24

Unassisted with severe problems 5,607 1,072 2,110 472 1,954 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 5,607 1,072 2,110 472 1,954 

Rent burden > 50% of income 5,530 1,059 2,083 466 1,922 

Severely inadequate housing 301 44 119 23 116 

[Rent burden only] 4,894 949 1,818 418 1,708 

Any with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

[Rent burden only] — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 49

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-8. (CONTINUED) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME 

WORST CASE RENTERS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2013

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household 2,414 817 2 0 1,595 

Husband-wife family 1,069 139 714 216 0 

Female head 3,388 722 1,475 265 926 

Minority head 3,017 464 1,430 290 833 

AFDC/SSI 1,047 197 453 108 289 

Social Security income 1,239 817 173 70 178 

Income below 50% poverty 2,362 416 962 172 813 

Income below poverty 4,959 817 2,005 423 1,714 

Income below 150% of poverty 5,565 1,052 2,108 466 1,940 

High school graduate 4,034 718 1,358 352 1,605 

2+ years post high school 1,113 178 294 87 554 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 1,909 47 1,063 172 627 

 At least full time 712 19 539 58 96 

Earnings main source of income 2,695 76 1,288 253 1,078 

Housing rated poor 370 27 167 40 137 

Housing rated good + 4,008 861 1,424 315 1,407 

Neighborhood rated poor 444 43 199 44 159 

Neighborhood rated good + 3,927 827 1,449 325 1,326 

In central cities 2,593 491 899 212 991 

Nonmetro 922 141 374 73 334 

Suburbs 2,092 441 836 186 629 

Midwest 1,055 191 340 77 447 

Northeast 1,149 301 359 80 410 

South 1,907 320 745 198 644 

West 1,495 260 666 116 453 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
50 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-9. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Non-Hispanic White (thousands) 8,931 8,220 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 4,097 3,618 45.9 44.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 2,081 1,770 23.3 21.5

Unassisted with no problems 1,127 1,117 12.6 13.6

Assisted 1,625 1,716 18.2 20.9

Any with severe problems 4,593 4,169 51.4 50.7

Rent burden > 50% of income 4,437 4,037 49.7 49.1

Severely inadequate housing 296 262 3.3 3.2

[Rent burden only] 4,007 3,672 44.9 44.7

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,615 2,323 29.3 28.3

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,425 2,125 27.2 25.9

Moderately inadequate housing 351 336 3.9 4.1

Crowded housing 81 83 0.9 1.0

[Rent burden only] 2,190 1,917 24.5 23.3

Any with no problems 1,724 1,728 19.3 21.0

Non-Hispanic Black (thousands) 4,606 4,666 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,820 1,657 39.5 35.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 759 835 16.5 17.9

Unassisted with no problems 323 377 7.0 8.1

Assisted 1,704 1,797 37.0 38.5

Any with severe problems 2,514 2,336 54.6 50.1

Rent burden > 50% of income 2,401 2,239 52.1 48.0

Severely inadequate housing 225 182 4.9 3.9

[Rent burden only] 2,072 1,936 45.0 41.5

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,297 1,342 28.2 28.8

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,121 1,225 24.3 26.3

Moderately inadequate housing 256 192 5.6 4.1

Crowded housing 102 81 2.2 1.7

[Rent burden only] 953 1,078 20.7 23.1

Any with no problems 795 988 17.3 21.2
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 51

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-9. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Hispanic (thousands) 4,348 4,186 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,971 1,845 45.3 44.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,095 1,092 25.2 26.1

Unassisted with no problems 391 391 9.0 9.3

Assisted 892 857 20.5 20.5

Any with severe problems 2,294 2,129 52.8 50.9

Rent burden > 50% of income 2,221 2,038 51.1 48.7

Severely inadequate housing 153 168 3.5 4.0

[Rent burden only] 1,951 1,843 44.9 44.0

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,423 1,397 32.7 33.4

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,254 1,217 28.8 29.1

Moderately inadequate housing 179 173 4.1 4.1

Crowded housing 338 315 7.8 7.5

[Rent burden only] 941 939 21.6 22.4

Any with no problems 631 660 14.5 15.8

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
52 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-10. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, BY REGION, 

2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Northeast (thousands) 3,939 3,804 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,604 1,542 40.7 40.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 715 641 18.2 16.9

Unassisted with no problems 372 380 9.4 10.0

Assisted 1,247 1,241 31.7 32.6

Any with severe problems 2,060 1,992 52.3 52.4

Rent burden > 50% of income 1,933 1,903 49.1 50.0

Severely inadequate housing 232 223 5.9 5.9

[Rent burden only] 1,656 1,661 42.0 43.7

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,112 1,032 28.2 27.1

Rent burden 30–50% of income 978 930 24.8 24.4

Moderately inadequate housing 220 148 5.6 3.9

Crowded housing 126 81 3.2 2.1

[Rent burden only] 789 814 20.0 21.4

Any with no problems 767 780 19.5 20.5

Midwest (thousands) 3,864 3,692 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,554 1,389 40.2 37.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 927 872 24.0 23.6

Unassisted with no problems 421 424 10.9 11.5

Assisted 962 1,007 24.9 27.3

Any with severe problems 1,897 1,690 49.1 45.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 1,827 1,628 47.3 44.1

Severely inadequate housing 129 111 3.3 3.0

[Rent burden only] 1,638 1,452 42.4 39.3

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,214 1,181 31.4 32.0

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,109 1,073 28.7 29.1

Moderately inadequate housing 146 167 3.8 4.5

Crowded housing 73 56 1.9 1.5

[Rent burden only] 1,003 963 26.0 26.1

Any with no problems 753 822 19.5 22.3
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 53

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-10. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY REGION, 2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

South (thousands) 6,487 6,350 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 2,964 2,612 45.7 41.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,432 1,459 22.1 23.0

Unassisted with no problems 713 788 11.0 12.4

Assisted 1,378 1,491 21.2 23.5

Any with severe problems 3,464 3,164 53.4 49.8

Rent burden > 50% of income 3,348 3,065 51.6 48.3

Severely inadequate housing 221 176 3.4 2.8

[Rent burden only] 2,995 2,745 46.2 43.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,907 1,895 29.4 29.8

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,723 1,682 26.6 26.5

Moderately inadequate housing 286 309 4.4 4.9

Crowded housing 156 143 2.4 2.3

[Rent burden only] 1,486 1,463 22.9 23.0

Any with no problems 1,116 1,291 17.2 20.3

West (thousands) 4,977 4,654 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 2,352 2,178 47.3 46.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,124 991 22.6 21.3

Unassisted with no problems 498 466 10.0 10.0

Assisted 1,003 1,019 20.2 21.9

Any with severe problems 2,681 2,507 53.9 53.9

Rent burden > 50% of income 2,622 2,414 52.7 51.9

Severely inadequate housing 152 151 3.1 3.2

[Rent burden only] 2,339 2,203 47.0 47.3

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,471 1,339 29.6 28.8

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,318 1,233 26.5 26.5

Moderately inadequate housing 195 120 3.9 2.6

Crowded housing 215 240 4.3 5.2

[Rent burden only] 1,077 997 21.6 21.4

Any with no problems 825 807 16.6 17.3

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
54 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-11. INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Central cities (thousands) 8,804 8,501 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 3,813 3,497 43.3 41.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,849 1,842 21.0 21.7

Unassisted with no problems 759 776 8.6 9.1

Assisted 2,383 2,387 27.1 28.1

Any with severe problems 4,692 4,370 53.3 51.4

Rent burden > 50% of income 4,489 4,175 51.0 49.1

Severely inadequate housing 402 381 4.6 4.5

[Rent burden only] 3,902 3,672 44.3 43.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,631 2,532 29.9 29.8

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,349 2,249 26.7 26.5

Moderately inadequate housing 396 391 4.5 4.6

Crowded housing 303 239 3.4 2.8

[Rent burden only] 1,973 1,930 22.4 22.7

Any with no problems 1,481 1,600 16.8 18.8

Suburbs (thousands) 7,105 6,583 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 3,340 2,963 47.0 45.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,615 1,444 22.7 21.9

Unassisted with no problems 846 829 11.9 12.6

Assisted 1,305 1,347 18.4 20.5

Any with severe problems 3,793 3,427 53.4 52.1

Rent burden > 50% of income 3,673 3,325 51.7 50.5

Severely inadequate housing 233 184 3.3 2.8

[Rent burden only] 3,327 3,051 46.8 46.3

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,076 1,913 29.2 29.1

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,919 1,789 27.0 27.2

Moderately inadequate housing 236 179 3.3 2.7

Crowded housing 186 220 2.6 3.3

[Rent burden only] 1,663 1,534 23.4 23.3

Any with no problems 1,237 1,243 17.4 18.9
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 55

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-11. (CONTINUED) INCIDENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, 

BY METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2011 AND 2013—NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE

Number Percentage

2011 2013 2011 2013

Nonmetropolitan (thousands) 3,358 3,416 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 1,323 1,261 39.4 36.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 734 677 21.9 19.8

Unassisted with no problems 399 453 11.9 13.3

Assisted 903 1,025 26.9 30.0

Any with severe problems 1,617 1,556 48.2 45.6

Rent burden > 50% of income 1,568 1,509 46.7 44.2

Severely inadequate housing 99 96 2.9 2.8

[Rent burden only] 1,399 1,338 41.7 39.2

Any with nonsevere problems only 997 1,002 29.7 29.3

Rent burden 30–50% of income 859 880 25.6 25.8

Moderately inadequate housing 215 174 6.4 5.1

Crowded housing 81 61 2.4 1.8

[Rent burden only] 718 773 21.4 22.6

Any with no problems 744 857 22.2 25.1

U.S. total (thousands) 19,267 18,500 100.0 100.0

Unassisted with severe problems 8,475 7,721 44.0 41.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 4,198 3,964 21.8 21.4

Unassisted with no problems 2,003 2,057 10.4 11.1

Assisted 4,591 4,759 23.8 25.7

Any with severe problems 10,102 9,353 52.4 50.6

Rent burden > 50% of income 9,730 9,009 50.5 48.7

Severely inadequate housing 734 661 3.8 3.6

[Rent burden only] 8,628 8,062 44.8 43.6

Any with nonsevere problems only 5,704 5,447 29.6 29.4

Rent burden 30–50% of income 5,128 4,918 26.6 26.6

Moderately inadequate housing 846 744 4.4 4.0

Crowded housing 570 519 3.0 2.8

[Rent burden only] 4,354 4,238 22.6 22.9

Any with no problems 3,462 3,700 18.0 20.0

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
56 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-12. HOUSEHOLDS OCCUPYING U.S. RENTAL UNITS, BY AFFORDABILITY OF RENT AND 

INCOME OF OCCUPANTS, 2011 AND 2013

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)

2013 10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 + Total

Extremely low-income (< 30% HAMFI) 868 1,672 1,367 1,423 1,911 1,718 850 513 252 136 73 321 11,104 

Very low-income (30–50%) 219 362 553 895 1,497 1,655 971 557 222 110 77 280 7,397 

Low-income (50–80%) 219 259 322 673 1,345 1,853 1,241 886 328 172 135 382 7,815 

Middle-income or higher (> 80%) 303 368 345 691 1,445 2,174 1,969 2,014 1,282 942 576 1,848 13,958 

Total occupied units 1,609 2,660 2,587 3,681 6,198 7,400 5,031 3,970 2,084 1,360 862 2,831 40,273 

Vacant units for rent 120 118 133 283 616 668 484 350 235 160 110 429 3,707 

2011

Extremely low-income (< 30% HAMFI) 794 1,778 1,278 1,473 2,134 1,953 1,068 588 226 135 100 247 11,774 

Very low-income (30–50%) 235 371 437 948 1,570 1,575 1,115 577 218 111 109 227 7,492 

Low-income (50–80%) 184 262 276 601 1,427 1,748 1,278 884 392 193 188 317 7,750 

Middle-income or higher (> 80%) 234 287 349 563 1,173 1,986 1,753 1,645 1,112 780 476 1,491 11,850 

Total occupied units 1,446 2,699 2,340 3,585 6,304 7,261 5,214 3,694 1,948 1,219 873 2,284 38,867 

Vacant units for rent 98 137 134 361 697 815 584 426 248 180 125 403 4,208 

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area Median Family Income.

* The 10 percent of HAMFI category includes units occupied with no cash rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 57

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-13. RENTERS AND RENTAL UNITS AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE TO THEM, 

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2001 TO 2013

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Renter households (thousands) 34,042 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396 38,867 40,294

Extremely low-income (< 30% HAMFI) 8,739 9,077 9,729 9,243 9,961 11,774 11,163

Very low-income (30–50%) 6,315 6,581 6,342 6,697 7,157 7,492 7,375

Low-income (50–80%) 7,251 7,460 7,488 7,650 7,168 7,750 7,795

Middle-income or higher (> 80%) 11,737 10,496 10,392 11,464 11,110 11,850 13,961

Affordable units 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744 43,075 43,992

Extremely low-income (< 30% HAMFI) 6,870 7,098 6,747 7,280 6,265 6,854 7,294

Very low-income (30–50%) 12,366 12,863 12,368 11,071 10,938 10,947 10,727

Low-income (50–80%) 13,634 13,518 14,044 15,063 16,228 17,995 17,904

Middle-income or higher (> 80%) 4,328 4,099 4,765 5,916 6,313 7,279 8,067

Affordable and available units 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744 43,075 43,992

Extremely low-income (< 30% HAMFI) 3,803 3,996 3,982 4,224 3,665 4,220 4,354

Very low-income (30–50%) 8,132 8,744 8,549 7,786 8,045 8,225 7,734

Low-income (50–80%) 11,665 12,396 12,865 13,196 14,004 15,361 14,529

Middle-income or higher (> 80%) 13,597 12,441 12,528 14,123 14,029 15,270 17,375

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area Median Family Income.

Note: Income categories in this table do not overlap and therefore differ from the standard definitions.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
58 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A-14. AVERAGE INCOME AND AVERAGE GROSS RENT OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, 

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2013

Household Income As Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2013 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% All Incomes

Total households (thousands) 11,104 7,397 7,815 6,683 7,274 40,273

Unassisted with severe problems 5,607 2,114 674 279 201 8,874

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 779 3,185 3,182 1,370 717 9,233

Unassisted with no problems 1,046 1,011 3,502 4,841 6,236 16,636

Assisted 3,672 1,087 457 194 120 5,530

Average monthly income $726 $1,961 $3,081 $4,415 $9,232 $3,559

Unassisted with severe problems $794 $1,869 $2,937 $3,977 $8,138 $1,479

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only $1,039 $2,057 $3,086 $4,346 $9,170 $3,218

Unassisted with no problems $331 $1,983 $3,122 $4,492 $9,277 $5,583

Assisted $670 $1,839 $2,940 $3,628 $9,109 $1,374

Average gross rent $714 $816 $870 $1,006 $1,293 $917

Unassisted with severe problems $863 $1,125 $1,507 $2,297 $2,390 $1,056

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only $563 $723 $931 $1,243 $1,898 $954

Unassisted with no problems $590 $500 $695 $863 $1,192 $925

Assisted $542 $708 $732 $887 $931 $611

2011 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% All Incomes

Total households (thousands) 11,774 7,492 7,750 5,799 6,051 38,867

Unassisted with severe problems 6,209 2,266 683 210 180 9,548

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 934 3,264 3,218 1,174 604 9,194

Unassisted with no problems 984 1,019 3,447 4,218 5,159 14,828

Assisted 3,648 943 403 196 108 5,298

Average monthly income $743 $1,970 $3,096 $4,452 $8,989 $3,286

Unassisted with severe problems $788 $1,878 $2,964 $4,562 $8,734 $1,435

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only $1,057 $2,042 $3,139 $4,427 $8,965 $3,085

Unassisted with no problems $391 $2,046 $3,095 $4,493 $9,011 $5,300

Assisted $681 $1,857 $3,000 $3,596 $8,504 $1,335

Average gross rent $681 $797 $861 $957 $1,275 $874

Unassisted with severe problems $797 $1,086 $1,490 $1,870 $2,924 $979

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only $571 $691 $930 $1,265 $1,908 $920

Unassisted with no problems $648 $563 $669 $826 $1,147 $884

Assisted $515 $644 $749 $878 $995 $580

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 59

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY

TABLE A-15. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVING NONELDERLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, 

BY DISABILITY TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Functional Limitations ADL/IADL Limitations

2013 Any 

Limitation Hearing Visual Cognitive Ambulatory Self-Care Independent Living

Households (thousands) 9,315 2,010 1,699 3,667 5,018 1,524 2,884

Renter households 4,265 767 805 1,788 2,366 675 1,290

Owner households 5,050 1,243 895 1,879 2,653 849 1,594

Renters (thousands) 4,265 767 805 1,788 2,366 675 1,290

Unassisted with severe 

problems

1,156 190 215 500 686 229 417

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

910 170 184 367 463 135 267

Unassisted with no problems 1,120 228 211 393 565 127 220

Assisted 1,080 179 194 529 652 184 387

Very low-income renters 

(thousands)

2,804 481 524 1,281 1,623 474 955

Unassisted with severe 

problems

1,085 179 199 481 648 221 389

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

509 79 108 209 257 80 147

Unassisted with no problems 223 59 34 103 118 12 53

Assisted 987 164 184 488 601 161 365

Any with severe problems 1,439 236 277 642 864 286 520

Rent burden > 50% of 

income

1,384 230 260 617 825 274 500

Severely inadequate housing 117 18 32 62 77 24 50

[Rent burden only, adequate 

housing]

1,166 188 202 512 699 235 406

Any with nonsevere 

problems only

825 131 158 388 449 130 258

Rent burden 30–50% of 

income

740 115 130 344 405 118 230

Moderately inadequate 

housing

129 34 30 73 85 23 43

Crowded housing 65 7 14 24 16 17 24

[Rent burden only] 647 92 114 302 352 98 199

Any with no problems 540 113 89 251 310 58 178
TABLE A-15. (CONTINUED) HOUSING CONDITIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVING NONELDERLY PEOPLE 

WITH DISABILITIES, BY DISABILITY TYPE, 2011 AND 2013

Functional Limitations ADL/IADL Limitations

2013 Any 

Limitation Hearing Visual Cognitive Ambulatory Self-Care Independent Living

Households (thousands) 9,995 2,272 1,808 4,018 5,020 1,480 2,877

Renter households 4,570 838 862 2,036 2,380 682 1,335

Owner households 5,425 1,434 946 1,982 2,640 797 1,542

Renters (thousands) 4,570 838 862 2,036 2,380 682 1,335

Unassisted with severe 

problems

1,377 218 254 647 705 223 414

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

955 188 190 406 501 108 234

Unassisted with no problems 1,141 296 238 440 543 123 292

Assisted 1,097 135 180 544 631 228 396

Very low-income renters 

(thousands)

3,068 481 548 1,474 1,661 502 974

Unassisted with severe 

problems

1,307 204 232 620 684 218 403

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

545 107 104 238 304 52 132

Unassisted with no problems 219 59 47 111 99 33 89

Assisted 997 111 164 506 574 199 349

Any with severe problems 1,656 243 299 791 879 283 519

Rent burden > 50% of 

income

1,589 234 287 766 840 274 491

Severely inadequate housing 175 34 34 77 83 34 67

[Rent burden only, adequate 

housing]

1,325 188 221 640 690 209 384

Any with nonsevere 

problems only

893 136 156 423 505 121 252

Rent burden 30–50% of 

income

756 112 114 368 435 107 222

Moderately inadequate 

housing

192 28 48 107 110 24 59

Crowded housing 108 20 19 63 49 10 24

[Rent burden only] 609 94 92 264 358 87 179

Any with no problems 519 102 92 260 277 98 203

2011

ADL = Activities of Daily Living. IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

60 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
APPENDIXB SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT B-1. BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS IN 2013

Note: Not to scale.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 61

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS SUMMARY

Worst case needs, 

7.72 million

Renters with severely 

inadequate housing, 

1.16 million

Renters with severe

rent burden, 

9.74 million

Other renters,

26.53 million

Unassisted very 

low-income renters, 

13.74 million

0.22 

million

0.60

million

0.27 

million

0.06

million

7.23

million

2.19

million
EXHIBIT B-2. AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS OCCUPIED BY HIGHER INCOME RENTERS, 2013

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

EXHIBIT B-3. RENTAL STOCK OF BELOW-FMR UNITS, 2013

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 24,418 28,049 20,827 18,867 114.9 85.3 77.3

Northeast 4,878 5,492 4,187 3,716 112.6 85.8 76.2

Midwest 4,342 5,223 3,582 3,266 120.3 82.5 75.2

South 8,666 10,181 7,597 6,883 117.5 87.7 79.4

West 6,532 7,153 5,461 5,002 109.5 83.6 76.6

City 10,840 11,954 9,265 8,210 110.3 85.5 75.7

Suburb 9,194 10,668 7,696 7,153 116.0 83.7 77.8

Nonmetro 4,384 5,428 3,866 3,503 123.8 88.2 79.9

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

0

2

1

4

3

9

8

7

6

5

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

Rental units (millions)

Unit affordability: percent of Area Median Income needed to afford the highest rent in the category

1.85

0.58

0.94

1.28

2.01

1.97

2.17

1.45

0.69

0.37 0.35

0.30

0.33

0.89

1.24

1.85

1.34

0.67

0.26 0.32

0.22

0.35 0.23 0.48 0.62 0.67 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.28

0.51

0.85

1.91 1.72

1.42 1.37 1.67

0.87

0.56

0.97

1.50 1.66

0.89

0.55 0.36

0.22 0.38

0.32

0.43

Renters with incomes of >80% AMI

Renters with incomes of 50–80% AMI

Renters with incomes of 30–50% AMI

Renters with incomes of 0–30% AMI

Vacant units for rent

62 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
APPENDIXC

FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS

HUD provides rental housing assistance through three key programs.

1. Public housing. Provides affordable housing to 1.1 million families through 

units owned and managed by local public housing agencies. Families are 

required to pay 30 percent of their incomes for rent.

2. Project-based assisted housing. Provides assistance to 1.3 million families 

living in privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the units, 

which are reserved for low-income families who are required to pay 30 percent 

of their incomes for rent.

3. Tenant-based rental assistance. The Section 8 voucher program supplements the rent payments of more than 2.0 million families in the private rental 

market. The program is administered through state and local housing agencies. 

Although 30 percent of income is the rent baseline, families often pay more and 

use these portable subsidies to locate housing of their choice.

Several other federal housing programs produce affordable housing, typically 

with shallower subsidies. Although these units are often more affordable than 

market-rate units, without additional rent subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely 

low-income families would often have to pay much more than 30 percent of their 

incomes under these programs. 

− Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. Tax credits offered to investors by the U.S. Department of the Treasury subsidize the capital costs of units 

that have rents affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 60 percent of 

Area Median Income. 

− HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Provides annual formula grants to 

state and local governments that can be used to assist homeowners, first-time 

homebuyers, or renters. Qualifying rents must be affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 65 percent of AMI or must be less than the local Fair Market 

Rent (FMR), whichever is less.

− Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS. Annual formula and competitive 

grants available to state and local governments and nonprofits for rental assistance 

targeted to a special-needs population. 

− Older rental subsidy programs. Programs named for sections of the National 

Housing Act, primarily the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program 

and the Section 236 mortgage assistance program, were active from the early 

1960s through the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing affordable 

for families with incomes greater than the public housing income limits. 

For further detail on HUD program requirements, see HUD-PD&R (2006).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 63

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS SUMMARY
64 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS
APPENDIXD

PREVIOUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

ON WORST CASE NEEDS

− Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 1989 (June 1991, HUD-1314-PDR).

− The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992, HUD1387-PDR).

− Worst Case Needs for Housing Assistance in the United States in 1990 and 1991

(June 1994, HUD-1481-PDR).

− Rental Housing Assistance at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst 

Case Housing Needs (March 1996).

− Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues (April 1998).

− Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis: A Report to Congress on 

Worst Case Housing Needs (March 2000). 

− A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid 

Continuing Challenges, Executive Summary (January 2001).

− Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999 (December 2003). 

− Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for 

Housing (December 2005).

− Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress (May 2007).

− Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the 

Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report (February 2008).

− Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: A Report to Congress (May 2010).

− Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress (February 2011).

− Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2013).

These publications are available on line at http://www.huduser.org.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 65

APPENDIX D. PREVIOUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON WORST CASE NEEDS SUMMARY
66 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX D. PREVIOUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON WORST CASE NEEDS
APPENDIX E

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

A report such as this one requires researchers to use a number of specialized 

concepts, definitions, and assumptions when analyzing and presenting the data. 

This appendix documents such elements for those who wish to understand the 

results more fully or replicate and extend the results in their own research. 

Using the American Housing Survey Data

This report uses data from the most recently available American Housing Survey 

(AHS), conducted in 2013. The AHS, which is the only detailed periodic national 

housing survey in the United States, is sponsored by HUD and conducted by 

the Census Bureau. 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, but, 

for 2013, about 84,400 housing units were sampled.30 The survey, which started 

in 1973, has sampled the same housing units since 1985; it also samples newly 

constructed units to ensure both continuity and timeliness of the data. Information 

from the worst case needs reports has helped inform public policy decisions, 

including decisions on targeting existing resources, determining the need for 

additional resources, and choosing the form housing assistance should take. 

To accurately estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from 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), whether a household already 

receives housing assistance, and whether an unassisted income-eligible household 

has one or more of the priority problems that formerly conferred preference in 

tenant selection for assistance (rent burdens exceeding 50 percent of income, 

substandard housing, or being involuntarily displaced). 

Weighting. Because the AHS is based on a sample of housing units rather than 

a census of all housing units, estimates based on the data must be “weighted 

up” so that totals for each year match independent estimates of the total housing 

stock and better represent the full housing stock. The Census Bureau weights up 

responses to account for undercoverage of households (about 2.2 percent) and 

household nonresponse (about 11 percent). The weights for 2001-through-2009 

AHS data used in this report are based on the 2000 Census of Housing, with 

adjustments for estimated change since then. The 2011 and 2013 AHS data are 

weighted to 2010 census benchmarks.

30 Census 2013, “National Appendix B: Sample Design and Weighting.”

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 67

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
68 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Exclusions. Households reporting incomes that are zero or 

negative are excluded from estimates of worst case needs, 

although they are included in counts of total households. If such 

households pay rents greater than the Fair Market Rent and 

report 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

In this report, the terms “family” and “household” are not 

interchangeable, because not all households are families. 

Families refers only to a subset of households that have one or 

more people in the household related to the householder (the 

first household member age 18 years or older who is listed as 

an owner or renter of the housing unit) by birth, marriage, or 

adoption.

Families with children. Households with a child younger than 

age 18 present are presumed to meet the definition of family 

through relation by birth or adoption (including grandparents as 

parents).

Elderly households without children. Households in which 

the householder or spouse is age 62 or older and in which no 

children are present. Elderly households may be either family or 

nonfamily households.

Other family households. Households with a nonelderly householder and no children in which either (1) one or more people are 

related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption; or 

(2) one or more subfamilies reside there who have members 

related to each other by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Other nonfamily households. Households with a single 

nonelderly person living alone or with only nonrelatives. Most of 

these households comprise single people living alone rather than 

unrelated people sharing housing.

Households with disabilities. Before 2009, no questions in 

the AHS were designed to ascertain directly whether individuals 

suffered from disabilities. Worst case needs reports for 2007 and 

earlier identified households containing people with disabilities 

using various forms of income-based proxies. Households with 

disabilities (1) were not families with children, (2) were not elderly 

households, and (3) received some form of income or government assistance that is very likely to indicate that an adult with 

disabilities is present in the household. Beginning with the 2009 

AHS, the survey now asks direct questions about impairments 

and difficulties with activities of daily living about each household 

member, including children. This report therefore addresses 

disability on the basis of people identified with these problems. 

In this report, elderly people with disabilities do not increase the 

number of households with disabilities because of the prevalence 

of disabilities associated with aging.

Housing Assistance Status

In 1997, the AHS questions intended to identify households 

receiving rental assistance were changed in both content and 

order from those used previously. After careful review, HUD and 

the Census Bureau adopted the following procedure to identify 

assisted units in a way that produces results that are more 

comparable with pre-1997 data. These questions were further 

refined in 2007, as a result of additional cognitive research.

− Determine whether the household must recertify to determine the rent it pays.

− Determine whether the rent is less 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.

− Determine whether the household was assigned to its 

housing unit or allowed to choose it.

Housing Problems

Rent or cost burden. A ratio of housing costs (including utilities) to 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 a cost burden. A severe

cost burden exceeds 50 percent of reported income. A moderate

cost burden exceeds 30 percent but is less than or equal to 50 

percent of reported income. Cost burdens qualify as potential 

worst case needs only if they are severe. Households reporting 

zero or negative income are defined as having no cost burden.

Inadequate housing. Housing with severe or moderate physical 

problems, as defined in the AHS since 1984 and modified from 

time to time to reflect changes in the survey. Severe inadequacies constitute potential worst case needs, but moderate 

inadequacies do not. The 2007 AHS eliminated the questions 

about hallways (common stairways and light fixtures) in multiunit 

structures in the section on selected physical problems, which 

affects the classification of units having severe or moderate physical problems. Briefly, a unit is defined as having severe physical 

inadequacies if it has any one of the following four problems. 

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, because of broken-down heating equipment.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 69

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

3. Electrical. Having no electricity or having all of the following 

three electrical problems: exposed wiring, a room with 

no working wall outlet, and three or more blown fuses or 

tripped circuit breakers in the 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 1 square foot of peeling paint or plaster, and rats in the 

past 90 days.

A unit has moderate inadequacies if it has any of the following 

four problems, but none of the severe problems listed previously.

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 

associated with 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.

“Priority” problems. Problems qualifying for federal preference 

in admission to assisted housing programs between 1988 and 

1996, including 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 homeless people, AHS estimates of priority problems are limited to the two severe problems 

described previously: (1) rent burdens greater than 50 percent of 

income, or (2) severe physical problems. In accordance with the 

intention to estimate the number of unassisted very low-income 

renters with priority problems, the exhibits 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. 

Beginning with the 2007 AHS, the previous combined question 

on interest, dividend, and rental income 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 before deductions for 

taxes or any other purpose. Imputed income from equity is not 

included as income in this report. In accordance with HUD rules 

for determining income eligibility for HUD programs, the earnings 

of teenagers age 17 and younger are not counted as income for 

this report.

Supplemental and in-kind income sources. Poorer renters 

with high rent burdens are asked several questions about 

whether people outside the household contributed to household 

expenses such as rent, food, and childcare. The supplemental 

questions are asked of assisted renters who paid more than 

35 percent of their reported income for rent and of unassisted 

renters with household incomes of less than $10,000 who paid 

more than 50 percent of their income for rent. (These questions 

were not asked in the 2007 AHS, because the module could not 

be translated to the Census Bureau’s new computer language 

[Blaise] in time.) 

Family income. Reported income from all sources for the 

householder and other household members related to the 

householder.

Household income. Reported income from all sources for all 

household members age 18 and older. 

Income Categories

HAMFI 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 

HAMFI. HAMFI is more commonly referred to as AMI, although 

the latter term may be subject to misinterpretation. Note that 

income limits are based on median family income (MFI), not on 

median household income. HUD determines base income limits 

for a household of four. Income limits are further adjusted by 

household size: one person, 70 percent of base; two people, 80 

percent; three people, 90 percent; five people, 108 percent; six 

people, 116 percent; and so on. Each household is assigned to 

an income category using the income limit appropriate to its area 

and the number of household members.31

31 For details about how HUD sets income limits, see http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il.html.
70 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

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 in the AHS microdata was time consuming, 

before the 2003 AHS release, HUD prepared income limits to use 

with AHS geography for only 3 years: 1978, 1986, and 1995. 

Income cutoffs for the 2003 AHS release and each subsequent 

dataset have been based on HUD’s current income limits for 

those years, weighted by AHS weights. The Census Bureau 

adds these cutoffs to the AHS public use file. Additional detail 

about income limits can be found in the AHS Codebook (HUDPD&R, 2013: 1051–1052).

Categorizing households by income. For this report, when 

households are categorized using the extremely low-, very low-, 

and low-income cutoffs, the cutoffs are adjusted for household 

size using the same adjustment factors that HUD programs use. 

In addition, households reporting negative income are attributed 

incomes of slightly more than AMI if their monthly housing costs 

exceed 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 temporary accounting losses. 

− Extremely low income. Income not in excess of 30 percent 

of HAMFI, as determined by the extremely low-income 

cutoff. 

− Very low income. Income not in excess of 50 percent of 

HAMFI, as determined by the very low-income cutoff. 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 of between 30 

and 50 percent of HAMFI. 

− Low income. Reported income not in excess of 80 percent 

of HAMFI, as determined by the low-income cutoff. 

− Poor. Household income of less than the U.S. national 

poverty cutoff 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 the income of households rather than the 

income of families or individuals, and AHS income questions 

are much less detailed and refer to income during the past 

12 months rather than during a fixed period. The poverty 

cutoff for a family of four approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. 

Comparisons of income limits with poverty thresholds are 

presented in exhibits A-6a, A-6b, A-7, and A-8.

− Middle income. For this report, income exceeding 80 

percent and less than 120 percent of HAMFI. 

− Upper income. For this report, income exceeding 120 

percent of HAMFI. 

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, metropolitan location in the AHS has 

referred to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas 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.

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 Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC), for example, housing units 

with rents up to 30 percent of 60 percent of HAMFI qualify as 

affordable and eligible for the credit. 

This report generalizes the approach developed to define LIHTC 

maximum rents for units of different 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 less than 30 percent of HAMFI, more than 30 and not 

more than 50 percent of HAMFI, and more than 50 percent of 

HAMFI. Gross rents for each unit, including payments for utilities, 

are compared with 30 percent of HUD’s extremely low-income 

and very low-income cutoffs. 

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; and plus 12 percent of 

base for every additional bedroom. This formula assumes that an 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS 71

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

efficiency unit houses one person, a one-bedroom unit houses 

1.5 people, and each additional bedroom houses another 1.5 

people. For vacant units, the costs of any utilities that would be 

paid by an occupant were allocated using a “hot deck” technique 

based on a matrix of structure type, AHS climate code, and eight 

categories of gross rent. 

Three measures of affordability. HUD uses three measures 

to analyze the supply of the rental housing stock in relation to 

the number of renters with household incomes below specified 

thresholds: affordable units per 100 renters; affordable and 

available units per 100 renters; and affordable, available, and 

adequate units per 100 renters. 

Categorizing rental units by affordability and households 

by income. To analyze the mismatch between affordability and 

income, HUD compares household incomes and housing unit 

rents with the current income limits (for income and rent categories up to and including 80 percent of HAMFI) and to a ratio of 

HAMFI (for categories exceeding 80 percent of HAMFI). As in the 

analysis of household income, households reporting negative 

income are redefined as having incomes slightly greater than 

MFI if their monthly housing costs were more than the FMR and 

they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. Units with “no 

cash rent” reported are categorized solely on the basis of utility 

costs. Utility costs are allocated to vacant units through hot-deck 

imputation based on units that are comparable on the basis of 

cost, number of units, region, and tenure.

Race and Ethnicity

In 2003, the AHS began using revised Census Bureau categories 

of race and ethnicity that are not directly comparable with 

the categories used in the AHS from 2001 and earlier. Survey 

respondents may now select more than one racial group, 

causing slight but significant decreases in the size of previously 

monolithic categories.
72 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2015 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

April 2015

Visit the Office of Policy Development and Research’s (PD&R’s) 

website, http://www.huduser.org, to find this report and others 

sponsored by PD&R. Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s Research and Information Service, include listservs, special interest 

and bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from 

other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline 

(1–800–245–2691) for help with accessing the information you need.