WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS 2011

REPORT TO CONGRESS

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

www.huduser.org

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of 

HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best 

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

accessing the information you need.
WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS 2011

REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development 

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by

Barry L. Steffen

With

Shawn Bucholtz

Marge Martin

David A. Vandenbroucke

Yunn-Gann David Yao

August 2013
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS v

CONTENTS

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

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

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2011 .................................................................1

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

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

 Increase in Worst Case Needs ....................................................................4

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

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

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

Summary...........................................................................................................7

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

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

 Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region and 

Metropolitan Location....................................................................................9

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

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

 Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the National Rental Stock ........13

 Rental Stock by Income ............................................................................14

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011: 

REPORT TO CONGRESS

CONTENTS
vi WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

CONTENTS

Geography of Supply ....................................................................................... 15

 Geographic Variation in Utility Costs ........................................................... 16

 Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location ....................................................... 16

 Rental Stock by Region .............................................................................. 17

Dynamics of Supply ......................................................................................... 18

 Trends in National Rental Stock .................................................................. 18

 Trends in Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location ........................................ 19

Summary.......................................................................................................... 20

Section 3. Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs.......................... 23

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand ......................................................... 23

Household Formation, Tenure, and Income Factors ................................... 24

Aftermath of the Homeownership Crisis and Recession ............................. 24

Affordable Housing Supply and Demand ......................................................... 25

Concluding Summary ....................................................................................... 27

Appendix A. Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of 

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

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits ................................................................ 63

Appendix C. Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs . 65

Appendix D. Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs ........... 67

Appendix E. Data and Methodology ............................................................... 69

Appendix F. Comparison of Data Sources ..................................................... 75

Literature Cited .................................................................................................. 79
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS vii

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011: 

SUMMARY

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

increases in worst case housing needs during the 2009 to 2011 period1

 that cut 

across demographic groups, household types, and regions. This rise in hardship 

among renters is due to substantial increases in rental housing demand and 

weakening incomes that increase competition for already-scarce affordable units. 

Given the severely challenged economic conditions that the United States 

confronted during this period, particularly surrounding the housing market, it is not 

surprising that the need for housing assistance continues to outpace the ability of 

federal, state, and local governments to supply it. Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: 

Report to Congress examines the causes of and trends in worst case needs for 

affordable rental housing.

Continued Increases in Worst Case Needs 

0

6,000

8,000

9,000

5,000

7,000

4,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Renters with worst case needs (thousands)

EXHIBIT 1. GROWTH IN WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS, 

2001–2011

5, 176

5, 992 5, 905

7, 095

5, 014

8, 475

1

 The term “worst case needs” is defined as very low-income renters with incomes below 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) who do not receive government 

housing assistance and who either paid more than half of their income for rent or lived in severely inadequate conditions, or who faced both of these challenges. HUD’s 

estimates of worst case needs are based primarily on data from the American Housing Survey (AHS).
viii WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SUMMARY

Worst case needs continue to grow at record rates. The number 

of renter households with worst case needs increased to 8.48 

million in 2011, up from a previous high of 7.10 million in 2009.

The high rate of growth in worst case needs observed in 2009 

continues unabated. The number of worst case needs has 

grown by 2.57 million households since 2007—a striking 43.5 

percent increase. 

The vast majority of these renters had worst case needs because 

of their severe rent burdens—paying more than half of their 

income for rent—while inadequate housing caused only three 

percent of worst case needs.

Worst Case Needs Affect All 

Demographic Groups and 

Household Types

Worst case needs affect all major racial and ethnic groups. 

Hispanic and non-Hispanic white households experienced the 

largest increases in the number of both very low-income renters 

and worst case needs since 2009. As a result, 48 percent of new 

cases of worst case needs were found among white, 28 percent 

among Hispanic, and 13 percent from black households.

Most household types experienced increases in worst case 

needs from 2009 to 2011.2

 In 2011, worst case needs affected 

3.24 million families with children, 1.47 million elderly households, 

2.97 million other “nonfamily” households (unrelated people 

sharing housing), and 0.80 million “other family” households.

0

1,500

1,000

500

Household formation

Source: HUD-PD&R analysis of American Housing Survey data Added worst case needs (thousands)

EXHIBIT 2. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CAUSES

OF INCREASING WORST CASE NEEDS, 2009 TO 2011

Increases Net result

+213

+514

+203

+127

+323 1,380

Decreases

Renter share

Renter income losses

Rental assistance gap

Affordable unit competition

Net change in worst case needs

Regardless of household type, one-third to one-half of very lowincome renters of each type experienced worst case needs in 2011.

Almost one in six renters with worst case needs included a 

nonelderly person with disabilities. The number of households 

with worst case needs having at least one nonelderly person 

with disabilities increased from 990,000 in 2009 to 1.31 million 

households in 2011, an increase of 320,000 households.

Context and Discussion

Estimates of worst case needs are based on the biennial 

American Housing Survey (AHS). Because the 2011 data were 

collected from May through September 2011, they do not 

capture changes arising since then. Nevertheless, the data show 

that while the economy has been slowly recovering from the 

2007 to 2009 recession, the economic benefits of recovery had 

not yet reached millions of very low-income renters in 2011.

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

case needs increased from 41.4 percent in 2009 to 43.9 percent in 

2011. However, this higher prevalence rate did not account for all 

of the increase in worst case needs. An increase in the number of 

renters had a greater effect (Exhibit 2).

The number of renter households increased primarily because 

a substantial number of homeowners became renters as a 

result of the nation’s economic and housing market problems—

unemployment and foreclosures—and also because of new 

household formation. Household formation and increasing renter 

share account for 210,000 and 510,000 new cases of worst case 

needs, or 53 percent of the total increase of 1.38 million.

The rest of the increase in worst case needs during 2009 to 2011 

can be attributed to falling incomes among renters, a continuing 

shortage of housing assistance, and increased scarcity of affordable 

housing. The income of the median renter declined by 1.5 percent 

during this period, even as the median rent increased by 4.1 percent.

Even when households that change tenure from owning to 

renting have incomes that keep them from having worst case 

needs, they nevertheless occupy rental units. As a result, they 

increase the demand for such units and cause rents to rise for 

more vulnerable renters.

Conversion of numerous owner-occupied units to rental units 

following foreclosure helped offset some of the sharp increase 

in rental demand from the former occupants of those units. The 

stock of owner-occupied housing decreased by almost 760,000 

units during 2009 to 2011,3

 while the rental stock increased 

by 3.33 million units (8.4 percent). The 3.47 million new renter 

households absorbed all the net increase of rental units while 

also occupying 140,000 previously vacant units.

2

 The estimated increase in worst case needs among elderly households is not statistically significant.

3

 The net loss of owner-occupied units reflects changes from new construction, demolition, and conversion. Construction was completed on 943,000 new single-family detached 

homes during 2010 and 2011. See U.S. Housing Market Conditions, table 4, http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/fall12/USHMC_3q12_historical.pdf.

4

 R ental units that are affordable at a specific income level are considered available if they are either currently vacant or already occupied by households whose incomes 

do not exceed that income level.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS ix

SUMMARY

The national scarcity of affordable units available for the renters 

who need them most

4

 continued to worsen (Exhibit 3), despite 

these substantial shifts in supply. The number of affordable and 

available rental units decreased to 65 units per 100 very lowincome renters and 36 units per 100 extremely low-income renters. 0

60

80

100

40

20

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Rental Units per 100 Renter Households

EXHIBIT 3. SHRINKING SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS 

AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY BY LOWER-INCOME RENTERS

Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI) Very Low Income (<50% AMI)

Conclusion 

The worsening situation for the nation’s 19.3 million very lowincome renters clearly reflects the severe economic dislocation 

of the recession and the associated collapse of the housing 

market, which reduced homeownership through foreclosures and 

increased demand for rental housing. The scale of the problem 

requires major strategic decisions. As worst case housing needs 

continue to increase and the level of housing assistance remains 

relatively flat, the gap between the number of assisted units and the 

number of households with severe housing needs has never been 

wider. There are approximately two very low-income households 

with worst case needs for every very low-income household with 

rental assistance. A broad strategy is to continue to rebuild the 

economy and provide assistance to those families most in need. 

While the nation’s economic woes affected everyone, those with 

very low incomes were least able to weather its effects. 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 1

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

SECTION 1

 EXTENT AND NATURE OF 

WORST CASE NEEDS

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 to Congress on the 

severity of worst case needs 

for affordable rental housing, 

as collected in the biennial 

American Housing Survey 

(AHS). This report is the 14th in 

the series of core reports.5

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2011

In the context of the recent upheaval in the homeownership market and economic 

recession, we examined the 2011 AHS data to understand the current dimensions 

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

in the following pages are—

− In 2011, 8.48 million renters had worst case needs, as shown in Exhibit 1–1. 

These renters have very low incomes,6

 lack housing assistance, and have either 

severe rent burdens or severely inadequate housing (or both).

0

6,000

8,000

9,000

5,000

7,000

4,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Renters with worst case needs (thousands)

EXHIBIT 1–1. GROWTH IN WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS, 

2001–2011

5, 014 5, 176

5, 992 5, 905

7, 095

8, 475

5

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

6 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 calculated on the basis of local family incomes, with adjustments for household size, more precisely known as HUD-Adjusted Median Family Income, or HAMFI (see 

Appendix E). On a nationwide basis, the AMI was $64,000 per year in 2009, placing the very low-income level at $32,000 per year and the extremely low-income level 

at $19,200 per year. All these income levels are for a family of four. Families with fewer than four people or who live in areas with lower median family incomes can have 

incomes of much less than these national thresholds if they qualify as very low- or extremely low-income households in their areas.
2 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

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 federal 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.)

− The rapid growth of worst case needs continues unabated. The 

number of worst case needs in 2011 was 19 percent greater 

than 2009 levels and 43 percent greater than 2007 levels. 

− The primary problem is rent burden—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 

reflects the impact of the economic and housing crises. 

Mortgage foreclosures, widespread unemployment, and 

shrinking renter incomes during the recession added many 

new very low-income renters—those vulnerable to worst 

case needs.

− Lower incomes led directly to increased worst case needs 

by increasing the number of renters with very low incomes 

and increasing rent burdens among very low-income 

renters. Income losses also exacerbated worst case needs 

indirectly by rapidly increasing demand and competition for 

the most affordable units, thereby raising rents. Therefore, 

the population of vulnerable very low-income renters grew 

substantially, and the prevalence of worst case needs 

simultaneously increased for this population during the 

2009-to-2011 period.

− The supply of affordable housing increased between 2009 

and 2011, but not enough to serve the increased number of 

very low-income renters. Housing assistance continued to 

help fill the gap and prevent millions of housing problems. 

The sum total of affordable housing units and assisted units 

fell further behind the need, however, resulting in a new 

surge in worst case housing needs.

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 their situations 

actually are.

WHAT IS A TYPICAL 

WORST CASE NEED 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 almost $800 per month, consuming all 

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, 96.4 percent of all worst case needs 

renters, or 8.21 million households, had severe rent burdens in 

2011. 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.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 3

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

N = 14.675 million unassisted very low-income renters

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

EXHIBIT 1–2. PRIORITY PROBLEMS CAUSING

WORST CASE NEEDS, 2011

3.1%

3.6%

93.3% Severely 

inadequate

housing only

3.1%

Severe rent

burden only

93.3%

Both priority

problems

3.6%

Severely inadequate housing alone triggers only 3.1 percent 

of worst case needs. If renters with severe rent burdens are 

included, 6.7 percent of worst case renters (570,000) had 

severely inadequate housing units. 

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. Nevertheless, the housing stock is continually aging, 

and severely inadequate units continue to pose threats to the life 

and health of thousands of renters.

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 notoriously difficult to survey or count.

In the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment 

Report to Congress, HUD estimated that 634,000 

sheltered and unsheltered homeless people were in the 

United States at a single point in time during January 

2012. Homelessness remained stable from the previous 

year but has declined 5.7 percent since 2007, including 

a decrease of 19.3 percent in chronic homelessness 

during the same period (HUD-CPD 2012).

Prevalence of Worst Case Needs by Income

The insufficiency of income relative to rents is the primary cause 

of worst case needs, affecting 44.0 percent of the 19.27 million 

very low-income renters, including 52.7 percent of extremely lowincome renters, in 2011 (Exhibit 1–3). Because extremely lowincome households also constitute by far most (61.1 percent) 

very low-income renters, nearly three out of four (73.3 percent) 

households with worst case needs had extremely low incomes 

during 2011.

EXHIBIT 1–3. WORST CASE NEEDS IN 2011

Very Low-Income Renters

0–30% AMI 30–50% AMI Total

Number (thousands) 11,774 7,492 19,266

Number that are worst case needs renters (thousands) 6,209 2,266 8,475

Percent that are worst case needs renters 52.7 30.2 44.0

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 Area Median Income (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
4 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Increase in Worst Case Needs

Worst case needs continue to increase at a record pace. The 

8.48 million worst case needs in 2011 were 19 percent more than 

the 2009 estimate7

 and 44 percent more than the 2007 estimate. 

The increase of 1.38 million from 2009 to 2011 easily satisfies the 

basic test for statistical significance.8

 The continuing increase of 

worst case needs extends the decade-long period of growth. 

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of renters with worst case 

needs increased by 3.46 million, or 69 percent.

Worst case needs also are increasing as a percentage of U.S. 

households (Exhibit 1–4). During the most recent 2-year period, 

the prevalence again increased by more than a full percentage 

point, from 6.3 percent in 2009 to 7.4 percent in 2011. This 

increase is statistically significant as well.9

EXHIBIT 1–4. PREVALENCE OF WORST CASE NEEDS OVER TIME

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

All households (millions) 105.44 105.87 108.90 110.72 111.86 115.08

Renters with worst case needs (millions) 5.01 5.18 5.99 5.91 7.10 8.48

Worst case needs as percent of all households 4.76 4.89 5.50 5.33 6.34 7.36

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 of this 

growing problem.

Demographics of Worst Case Needs

Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status

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, however, both similarities and 

differences emerge.

During 2011, most worst case needs continued to be experienced 

by non-Hispanic white renters, with smaller shares experienced by 

non-Hispanic black renters, Hispanic renters, and other renters. The 

shares approximate the representation of these groups among very 

low-income renters. Together, the three largest race and ethnicity 

groups accounted for 93.1 percent of worst case needs in 2011. 

N = 8.475 million renters with worst case needs

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

EXHIBIT 1–5. SHARE OF WORST CASE NEEDS,

BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2011

6.9% 

23.3% 

21.5% 

48.3% 

Hispanic,

23.3%

Non-Hispanic

black, 21.5%

Other,

6.9%

Non-Hispanic

white, 48.3%

7

 All estimates of worst case needs in 2009 refer to previously published estimates (HUD-PD&R, 2011). The estimates are based on 2009 AHS data that the Census Bureau 

benchmarked to household control totals from the 2000 census. By contrast, 2011 AHS data were benchmarked to the 2010 census. HUD examined the effect on worst 

case needs of rebenchmarking the 2009 AHS to the 2010 control totals. Rebenchmarking increases the 2009 estimate of 7.095 million worst case needs to 7.167 million. 

Because the difference of 72,000 households is modest, HUD did not attempt to amend the 2009 estimates. See Appendix F for further discussion.

8

 The 95 percent confidence interval for the 2011 estimate is 8.173 million to 8.777 million. This likely range for the true value does not overlap with the 2009 confidence 

interval of 6.801 million to 7.389 million. Also see footnote 9 for a fuller discussion.

9

 In analyzing 2011 results, HUD was unable to conduct sophisticated tests of statistical significance that would take into account the AHS panel design. Because the AHS 

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

simple statistical tests imply. HUD and the Census Bureau previously used the more stringent method in assessing the 2003-to-2005 change, however. That test indicated 

that a 2003-to-2005 change in incidence across all U.S. households was significant at the 95-percent confidence level if it exceeded 0.294 percentage points (HUD 2007: 

13). The result is strongly suggestive but not conclusive that the 2009-to-2011 increase of 1.02 percentage points in overall incidence easily is statistically significant. HUD 

and the Census Bureau provide replicate weights with the AHS public use files beginning with 2009, which should enhance the ability of researchers to estimate standard 

errors (HUD-PD&R, 2012b; http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/ahsdata09.html).
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 5

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 1–6 illustrates that the prevalence of worst case needs 

among very low-income renters during 2011 was greatest for nonHispanic whites, at 45.9 percent. Hispanics had the next greatest 

rate, at 45.3 percent, and the rate for blacks was 39.5 percent. An 

increase of 1.2 percentage points in the prevalence among whites 

moved them ahead of Hispanics, for whom the prevalence did not 

change. Prevalence among blacks with very low incomes surged 

by 3.0 percentage points between 2009 and 2011. 

0

15,000

10,000

5,000

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Renters (thousands)

EXHIBIT 1–6. VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS AND WORST 

CASE NEEDS, BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2009 AND 2011

Non-Hispanic

White

Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Black

Very low-income renters Worst case needs

8,051 8,931 

4,493 4,606 

3,493 4,348 

3,436 4,097 1,640 1,820 1,582 1,971 

The variations in the experiences of these race and ethnicity 

groups during different phases of the Great Recession10 and 

the ensuing recovery period suggest that differences in their 

geographic distribution and economic status create different 

vulnerabilities to economic stressors.11 As Exhibit 1–6 shows, the 

base of vulnerable very low-income renters increased for all three 

groups, but it did so at very different rates. During the 2009-

to-2011 span, the number of very low-income renters increased 

24.5 percent among Hispanics, 10.9 percent among nonHispanic whites, and 2.5 percent among non-Hispanic blacks. 

This pattern of growth among very low-income renters differs 

markedly from that of the preceding, 2007-to-2009 period, when 

growth was more modest among both whites and Hispanics but 

four times greater among blacks. 

Worst Case Needs by Household Type

The composition of different households reflects variations in their 

stage of life, income and resources, and housing needs. Families 

with children constitute the most worst case needs households 

(Exhibit 1–7), followed by nonfamily renter households, elderly 

renters, and other families. 

N = 4.475 million renters with worst case needs

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

EXHIBIT 1–7. SHARE OF WORST CASE NEEDS,

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011

38.2% 

9.5% 17.3% 

35.0% 

Families with 

children, 38.2%

Elderly without

children,17.3%

Other families,

9.5%

Other nonfamily,

35.0%

Exhibit 1–8 provides greater detail, showing the number of very 

low-income renters and instances of worst case needs for these 

household types in 2009 and 2011. 

0

15,000

10,000

5,000

2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Renters (thousands)

EXHIBIT 1–8. VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS AND WORST

CASE NEEDS, BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Families

With 

Children

Other 

Families

Elderly 

Without

Children

Very low-income renters Worst case needs

2009 2011

Other 

Nonfamily

6,758 7,561 

3,636 3,934 

1,410 1,782 

5,314 5,990 

2,734 3,236 1,328 1,470 633 801 2,401 2,969 

Families With Children

Worst case needs continue to increase among families with 

children. Families with children accounted for 500,000 new 

cases of worst case needs during the 2009-to-2011 period. This 

growth reflects both an increase of 800,000 very low-income 

10 The United States endured a Great Recession from December 2007 to June 2009 (NBER, 2010) that was caused in large part by a financial and mortgage crisis.

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

subprime mortgage market, prevalence of foreclosures, and variations in occupations and industries (for example, construction). A detailed analysis of such factors is 

beyond the scope of this report.
6 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

renters with children and greater prevalence of worst case needs 

among these households. The 42.8-percent rate of worst case 

needs in 2011 built on the striking increase from 34.6 percent in 

2007 to 40.5 percent in 2009. 

In the absence of housing assistance, worst case needs would be 

substantially more. Among very low-income renters with children, 

1.87 million (24.7 percent) receive rental assistance and therefore, 

by definition, cannot have worst case needs. On the other hand, 

although very low-income renters with children account for the 

greatest share of worst case needs (a situation that therefore has 

great significance for the nation’s future), only one in four receives 

housing assistance. 

Elderly Households

During 2011, 1.47 million elderly12 renters had worst case needs, 

an increase of 140,000 from the 2009 estimate. The prevalence 

rate among elderly very low-income renters was 37.4 percent in 

2011, less than the rate for families with children but more than 

the rate of 36.5 in 2009. 

Other Families

After considering families with children and elderly-headed 

households, other renter households can be divided into those 

that include multiple members of a given family and those that do 

not. “Other families” include households 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 families 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 families constituted the smallest category in Exhibits 1–7 

and 1-8, representing 1.78 million very low-income renters, of 

whom 800,000 had worst case needs in 2011. Other families 

thus accounted for only 9.5 percent of worst case needs, 

although their share expanded from 8.9 percent in 2009. After a 

dramatic increase (from 33.8 percent in 2007), however, the 44.9 

percent of very low-income other family renters that had worst 

case needs continued to exceed the prevalence among families 

with children and elderly households. 

Other Nonfamily Households

About 5.99 million very low-income renters in 2011 were “other 

nonfamily” households, making this category the second largest 

after families with children, and the number grew by 680,000 

households from 2009 to 2011.

Worst case needs households included 2.97 million other 

nonfamily households. The prevalence of 49.6 percent among 

very low-income renters of this type was the greatest among the 

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

four household categories. This proportion was 4.4 percentage 

points greater than the 2009 level, which was up 2.3 points from 

the 2007 level. 

Evidence suggests that other nonfamily households are doubling 

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

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

unrelated people sharing a housing unit. The 78.4 percent share 

of single individuals in 2011 was a decrease from 82.1 percent 2 

years earlier, however, suggesting that more individuals may be 

living with friends or taking a roommate. 

Further, individuals with very low incomes who begin to share 

housing may jointly surpass the very low-income threshold, 

thereby reducing the number of very low-income renters by two. 

Neither the 11-percent increase in this household category nor the 

3.7-point increase in the share comprising unrelated roommates 

includes such cases of doubling up that cause an upward shift in 

income categories.

Households Including People With Disabilities

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. 

QUESTIONS ABOUT DISABILITIES INTRODUCED

IN THE 2009 AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY

• Is anyone in this household deaf or do they have 

serious difficulty hearing?

• Is anyone in this household blind or do they have 

serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?

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

does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

• Does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

walking or climbing stairs?

• Does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

dressing or bathing?

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

physical, mental, or emotional condition, does anyone 

in this household have difficulty doing errands alone 

such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?

Source: HUD-PD&R, 2009: 172–174. 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 7

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

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 are the most frequently occurring type 

of disability, affecting 53 percent of very low-income renter 

households that include a nonelderly person with a disability, 

followed by cognitive limitations, which affect 48 percent of these 

households.13 People with disabilities are found among all four 

household types discussed previously. As Exhibit 1–9 shows,14

15.9 percent of renter households contain nonelderly individuals15

reporting at least one of the six measures of disability. Of the 

8.48 million renters with worst case needs in 2011, 1.31 million, 

or 15.4 percent, contained one or more nonelderly people with 

disabilities.16 Worst case needs increased 32 percent from the 

986,000 such households in 2009.

EXHIBIT 1–9. WORST CASE NEEDS AND PRESENCE OF NONELDERLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2011 

Families With 

Children

Elderly Families 

Without Children

Other

Family

Other 

Nonfamily Total

Very low-income renters (thousands) 7,561 3,934 1,782 5,990 19,267

Worst case needs (thousands) 3,236 1,470 801 2,969 8,476

Percent with worst case needs 42.8 37.4 44.9 49.6 44.0

Percent having people with disabilities 16.7 2.4 22.6 21.9 15.9

Very low-income renter households having 

nonelderly people with disabilities (thousands)

1,259 94 403 1,312 3,068

Worst case needs (thousands) 544 31 207 524 1,306

Percent with worst case needs 43.2 33.0 51.4 39.9 42.6

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

The prevalence of worst case needs among very low-income 

renter households having nonelderly people with disabilities 

averaged 42.6 percent in 2011, up from 38.2 percent in 2009. This 

increase of 4.4 percentage points exceeds the 2.6-point increase 

observed among very low-income renters overall, a difference 

that may reflect both greater vulnerability to income shocks and 

reduced ability to change the housing situation among people 

with disabilities. The prevalence of worst case needs among 

very low-income renters with disabilities ranges from one-third 

for elderly households without children to more than one-half 

of “other family” households. The largest household categories, 

however, account for most worst case needs affecting people 

with disabilities: 42 percent of affected households are families 

with children and 40 percent are “other nonfamily.”

Summary

Worst case needs for affordable rental housing are a significant 

and growing problem. Of the 19.27 million very low-income 

renters susceptible to severe rent burdens and severely 

inadequate housing, 8.48 million—44.0 percent—faced one 

or both problems without housing assistance during 2011. The 

number of worst case needs increased sharply and significantly 

from 2009, when 7.10 million renters experienced worst case 

needs, and has been climbing for a decade. The number of 

worst case needs in 2011 was 19 percent greater than in 2009, 

43 percent greater than in 2007, and 69 percent greater than in 

2001. Since 2001, worst case needs have expanded from 4.8 to 

7.4 percent of all households in the nation.

13 The data about types of limitations are summarized in Appendix A, Table A–15. Also see HUD-PD&R 2008.

14 The reader who compares estimates across worst case needs reports should be aware that, in the 2009 report, the lower half of Exhibit 1–9 displays erroneous values, 

because it was corrupted during production. Correct values can be obtained from Appendix A, Table A–5B. 15 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 person-headed households, as Exhibit 1–9 demonstrates. Households headed 

by an elderly person with disabilities are not excluded if they also have a nonelderly person with disabilities. 16 As previously reported, American Community Survey data in previous years suggested that AHS data undercount very low-income renters with disabilities, producing 

corresponding estimates 30 to 60 percent greater. 
8 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Worst case needs have grown even as severely inadequate 

housing continues to become less prevalent. In 2011, severely 

inadequate housing alone triggered only 3.1 percent of worst case 

needs, whereas 96.9 percent of worst case needs households 

had severe rent burdens and 3.6 percent had both problems. The 

importance of severe rent burdens in causing worst case needs 

accounts for the fact that nearly three out of four (73.3 percent) 

households with worst case needs had extremely low incomes 

during 2011. 

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

no household composition examined are exempt from worst 

case needs. From 2009 to 2011, the rate of worst case needs 

increased among non-Hispanic whites (1.2 points, to 45.9 

percent of very low-income renters) and non-Hispanic blacks 

(3.0 points, to 39.5 percent), whereas the rate did not change 

for Hispanics (45.3 percent). 

The differing experiences of racial and ethnic groups during the 

postrecessionary period may result from differences in location, 

subprime mortgage involvement, and employment situations. 

Increases in the population of very low-income renters were 

roughly similar for the three groups from 2007 to 2009, with 

growth ranging from 5.9 to 11.1 percent. From 2009 to 2011, 

however, the number of very low-income black renters increased 

only 2.5 percent compared with increases of 10.9 percent for 

whites and 24.5 percent for Hispanics.

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

among families with children (42.8 percent), elderly households 

without children (37.4 percent), other family households (44.9 

percent), and other nonfamily households (49.6 percent), which 

include single adults and roommates. Families with children 

account for the greatest share of worst case needs, 38.2 percent, 

followed by other nonfamily renters, 35.0 percent, who continue 

to multiply. 

Worst case needs occurred for 42.6 percent of very low-income 

renters reporting nonelderly people with disabilities in 2011, as 

these households close the gap with the 44.0 percent prevalence 

among very low-income renters overall. 

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.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 9

SECTION 2

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

17 Through 2009, HUD and the Census Bureau conducted periodic AHS metropolitan surveys to supplement the national AHS. Beginning in 2011, the national AHS 

incorporates metropolitan oversamples to provide metropolitan data more frequently. 

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. Nationally, only 58 affordable 

units exist for every 100 extremely low-income renters. The presence of higher 

income renters in units that extremely low-income renters could afford worsens 

this shortage. Fewer than 36 affordable units are available for occupancy for every 

100 extremely low-income 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. Even more than wealthier renters, very low- and 

extremely low-income renters find their choice of housing units limited to those in 

their current communities and neighborhoods.

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

estimates of worst case needs for many individual metropolitan areas.17 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, provides considerable detail to the national picture 

of worst case needs.

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region and 

Metropolitan Location

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

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

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

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

housing assistance and of worst case needs together provides information about 

the extent to which assistance is mitigating severe housing problems.
10 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2–1 shows the distribution of the nation’s 19.27 million 

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

metropolitan categories. On a regional basis, most very lowincome renters, 6.49 million, are found in the South, 4.98 million 

are found in the West, and similar shares of 3.94 million and 3.86 

million are found in the Northeast and Midwest, respectively.

Central cities are home to most (8.80 million) very lowincome renters, followed closely by suburbs18 (7.10 million) and 

nonmetropolitan areas (3.36 million).19

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

AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE, BY REGION AND METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2011

Metropolitan Location

Region Central Cities Suburbs Nonmetropolitan Areas Total

Midwest (thousands) 1,787 1,237 841 3,864

Percent with worst case needs 40.0 44.2 35.0 40.2

Percent with housing assistance 25.2 20.0 31.3 24.9

Northeast (thousands) 2,186 1,354 399 3,939

Percent with worst case needs 39.9 43.3 36.6 40.7

Percent with housing assistance 36.0 23.3 36.1 31.7

South (thousands) 2,610 2,390 1,488 6,487

Percent with worst case needs 46.7 47.5 41.0 45.7

Percent with housing assistance 25.6 15.6 22.6 21.2

West (thousands) 2,222 2,125 630 4,977

Percent with worst case needs 45.4 50.4 43.2 47.3

Percent with housing assistance 21.5 17.3 25.1 20.2

Total (thousands) 8,804 7,105 3,358 19,267

Percent with worst case needs 43.3 47.0 39.4 44.0

Percent with housing assistance 27.1 18.4 26.9 23.8

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

every region and metropolitan category across the nation. As a 

national average, 44.0 percent of very low-income renters have 

worst case needs. The prevalence of worst case needs is slightly 

more than the national average in the West, about the same as 

the national average in the South, and marginally less than the 

national average in the Northeast and Midwest.

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

As compared with the nation as a whole, the prevalence of worst 

case needs among very low-income renters is slightly more in the 

suburbs and somewhat less in nonmetropolitan areas. 

Exhibit 2–1 also demonstrates the important role housing 

assistance plays in reducing worst case needs. On a national 

basis, 4.59 million very low-income renters—23.8 percent—

report receiving housing assistance20 and 44.0 percent have 

worst case needs. Thus, 1.8 very low-income renters have worst 

case needs for every 1 that is assisted.21

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

19 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. 20 In this report, housing assistance status is determined by self-report in the AHS, as discussed in Appendix E. HUD matched administrative data for HUD’s public housing, 

Housing Choice Voucher, and assisted multifamily housing programs with the 2011 AHS to validate self-reported assistance status. 21 AHS estimates of assisted very low-income renters rely on self-reported data, but they reflect recent improvements in data reliability. By comparison, HUD administrative 

data for 2009 show 4.60 million assisted households, based on 3.38 million units of Section 8-assisted housing, 1.05 million units of public housing (net of 7 percent 

vacancy), 0.15 million units of housing for elderly and disabled people, and 0.02 million units of tenant-based assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships 

Program (HUD, 2009: 349). Some HUD-assisted renters may have incomes above the very low-income threshold if their incomes increased after program admission.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 11

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Housing assistance is relatively less common in the suburbs, 

where only 18.4 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 20.2 percent in the 

West to 31.7 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 2–2 charts the same data to illustrate the vital role of 

housing assistance in preventing households from falling into worst 

case needs. The prevalence of worst case needs among very lowincome renters is less in rural, nonmetropolitan areas and in the 

Northeast and Midwest, where housing assistance is relatively 

more available. Even in Northeast central cities, however, only 36.1 

percent of eligible very low-income renters benefit from assistance.

10%

30%

40%

20%

30% 40% 50% 60%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Percent of very low-income renters with housing assistance

EXHIBIT 2–2. GEOGRAPHIC SHARES OF WORST 

CASE NEEDS, BY PREVALENCE OF HOUSING 

ASSISTANCE AND OF WORST CASE NEEDS, 2011

Percent of very low-income renters with worst case needs

Northeast

nonmetro Northeast

central city

Midwest nonmetro

South suburb

Midwest suburb West suburb

South nonmetro

Midwest central city

West central city

South central city

West nonmetro

Northeast suburb

Size of bubble is 

proportional to 

share of national 

worst case needs 

(range 2%–14%)

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.22 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. 

Although worst case needs increased in every region from 2009 

to 2011, the West made the greatest contribution to the national 

increase. The number of very low-income renters increased by 

a substantial 26.0 percent in the West compared with more 

modest increases of 9.7 percent in the South, 8.6 percent in the 

Northeast, and 6.5 percent in the Midwest. Further, the West 

experienced the greatest prevalence of worst case needs in both 

2009 and 2011. As a result, the West accounted for 47.7 percent 

of the increase in worst case needs in the most recent period, the 

South contributed 26.7 percent, the Northeast contributed 14.6 

percent, and the Midwest contributed 11.0 percent.

Interaction of Race and Ethnicity With 

Metropolitan Location 

Despite differing distributions of minority and nonminority very 

low-income renters within metropolitan areas, suburban areas 

are emerging as the place where very low-income renters are 

most likely to experience worst case needs. Exhibit 2–3 shows 

the number of very low-income renters, both overall and with 

worst case needs, by the major race and ethnicity groups and 

their metropolitan location.

Across the nation, 3.81 million instances of worst case needs were 

in central cities (45.0 percent of the total), another 3.34 million 

were in suburban areas (39.4 percent), and 1.32 million were in 

nonmetropolitan areas (15.6 percent). The distribution of worst 

case needs by metropolitan location parallels the distribution of 

very low-income renters across these areas.

The most common areas in which to find worst case needs differ 

for white renters23 as compared with minority renter populations. 

White households continue to account for the greatest share of very 

low-income renters and of worst case needs in every metropolitan 

category. The greatest proportion of white very low-income renters 

(40.4 percent) live in suburbs, and the greatest share of their worst 

case needs (41.4 percent) are found there, as well. 

22 High rents introduce the question of whether enough rental units are available at Fair Market Rents (FMR) 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 86 percent of the renters that 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. 23 In this discussion, “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites, and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks.
12 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EXHIBIT 2–3. NUMBER OF VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS OVERALL AND WITH WORST CASE NEEDS, 

BY RACE AND ETHNICITY AND METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2011

Metropolitan Location

Region Central Cities Suburbs Nonmetropolitan 

Areas Total

Non-Hispanic White (thousands) 2,964 3,612 2,355 8,931

 Percent with worst case needs 47.8 46.9 41.8 45.9

Non-Hispanic African American (thousands) 2,749 1,407 450 4,606

 Percent with worst case needs 37.1 44.8 37.8 39.5

Hispanic (thousands) 2,425 1,590 333 4,348

 Percent with worst case needs 44.5 49.1 33.3 45.3

Other (thousands) 666 496 220 1,381

 Percent with worst case needs 44.4 47.2 25.9 42.5

Total (thousands) 8,804 7,105 3,358 19,267

 Percent with worst case needs 43.3 47.0 39.4 44.0

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

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

case needs households are most commonly found in central cities. 

Central cities are home to 59.6 percent of black very low-income 

renters and 56.0 percent of black worst case needs. Similarly, 55.8 

percent of Hispanic very low-income renters and 54.8 percent of 

Hispanic worst case needs occur in central cities. A similar story 

can be told for “other” minority households. As Exhibit 2–3 shows, 

however, despite minority very low-income renters being more 

prevalent in central cities, they are more likely to experience worst 

case needs if they live in suburbs.

How the Market Allocates Affordable Housing on 

a National Basis

The competition for good quality, affordable housing is fierce. 

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 2–4 shows the 

distribution of rental units and their occupancy by the affordability 

of their rents relative to the Area Median Income (AMI). A unit is 

considered affordable for a renter if the gross rent (rent plus 

utilities) does not exceed 30 percent of income. Any given renter 

may live in a unit renting for less than, the same as, or more than 

that threshold, however.24

EXHIBIT 2–4. OCCUPANCY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, 2011

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 2,635 3,765 5,384 NA 11,783

Same-or-lower income occupants 3,850 6,124 10,786 6,324 27,084

Vacant 369 1,058 1,825 955 4,208

Total 6,854 10,947 17,995 7,279 43,075

AMI = Area Median Income. NA = not applicable.

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

24 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 Appendices A and B, where Exhibits A–12 and B–2 show unit affordability and occupancy status using 10-point income breaks.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 13

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The extent of competition for the most affordable housing, 

portrayed in Exhibit 2–4, is striking. Higher income renters occupy 

2.64 million, or 38.4 percent, of the units affordable to extremely 

low-income renters. Similarly, higher income renters occupy 34.4 

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

AMI and 29.9 percent of units affordable at incomes of 50 to 80 

percent of AMI.

The varying proportions of vacant units across the affordability 

categories further demonstrate the competition for affordable 

units. The vacancy rate increases as the affordability of the rent 

decreases (Exhibit 2–5). Among the least costly units—those 

with rents affordable at incomes of 0 to 30 percent of AMI—only 

5.4 percent are vacant. The vacancy rate jumps to 9.7 percent 

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

10.1 percent among units affordable at incomes of 50 to 80 

percent of AMI, and to 13.1 percent among the highest rent units. 

Overall, the average rental vacancy rate declined from 10.9 

percent in 2009 to 9.8 percent in 2011.25

0

15%

20%

10%

5%

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

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Percent of rental units that are vacant

EXHIBIT 2–5. DISPARITIES IN RENTAL VACANCIES 

BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, 2009 AND 2011

Affordability category 

(percent of AMI needed to afford the highest rent in the category)

Vacancy rate, 2011

Vacancy rate, 2009

The gradient in national vacancy rates seen in Exhibit 2–5 

became less steep between 2009 and 2011. Nevertheless, 

the market for units affordable at extremely low income levels 

remains very tight. Increasingly slack market conditions are found 

at higher rent levels (which include numerous vacation homes). 

The availability of 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.

The shifts in vacancy from 2009 to 2011 reflect in part the 

expansion of the rental stock by a significant 3.33 million units, 

or 8.4 percent. Vacancies decreased, however, because the net 

increase in the stock was entirely absorbed by the concurrent 

increase of 3.47 million rental households.

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 2–6 describes the U.S. rental housing 

stock in 2011 using AHS data. These aggregate data portray how 

well the overall stock could meet the need for affordable housing 

if location did not matter.26

0

100

140

60

80

120

40

Rental units per 100 renters

20

EXHIBIT 2–6. THREE MEASURES OF THE SUFFICIENCY

OF THE U.S. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, 2011

Income as percent of Area Median Income

0 10 3 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 70 90 110

Affordable

Affordable & available

Affordable, available, & adequate

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

The cumulative number of affordable units is shown to equal the 

cumulative number of renters only when incomes approaching 

55 percent of AMI are included. Beyond this point, more than 

100 affordable units exist per 100 renters—enough, with perfect 

allocation, to provide affordable housing to every renter with an 

income of more than 55 percent of AMI. This threshold moved 

higher from the 2009 level of 50 percent of AMI and the 2007 

level of 45 percent of AMI, meaning that the scarcity of affordable 

units is reaching higher up the income scale. 

25 Comparable estimates of the rental vacancy rate based on the Current Population Survey are 10.5 percent in 2009 and 9.6 percent in 2011. See Exhibit 26, “U.S. Housing 

Market Conditions,” http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/winter12/USHMC_4q12_historical.pdf. 26 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.
14 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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.27

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

scale. Enough affordable units existed to house only 58 percent 

of extremely low-income renters in 2011, even if those units 

somehow could have been perfectly allocated. The affordable 

stock for extremely low-income renters continues to grow 

scarcer, as the comparable figures were 61 percent in 2009 and 

76 percent in 2007. 

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 it is affordable at that level 

and either (1) occupied by a renter at that income 

level or less, or (2) vacant. 

• Adequacy extends the concept of availability by 

considering whether sufficient rental units are physically 

adequate, affordable, and available. Adequacy thus is 

the most restrictive of the three measures.

Considering availability in addition to affordability adds an 

important dimension—whether higher income renters currently 

occupy affordable units. Availability poses an important additional 

constraint on renters seeking affordable units;28 only about 36 

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 2–4). The affordable stock is 

nominally sufficient to house every renter with an income greater 

than 55 percent of AMI, yet the affordable and available stock 

does not match the number of renters until household incomes 

reach about 75 percent of AMI. 

Exhibit 2–6 also illustrates that adding a third criterion—that units 

should be physically adequate—further reduces the supply of 

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

to 80 percent of AMI), only 93 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 110 percent of AMI.

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 2–7 summarizes the three housing stock 

measures for the standard income groups used in this report. 

A severe mismatch exists between the number of extremely 

low-income renters and the number of affordable units available 

to them. For every 100 extremely low-income renters, only 61 

affordable units exist, and fewer than 36 are affordable and 

available. If physically adequate units are required, only 31 units 

are available for every 100 extremely low-income renters.29 

27 Exhibit A–1A shows that only 10.8 percent of renters with incomes above 80 percent of AMI have either moderate or severe rent burdens.

28 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. 29 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).
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 15

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EXHIBIT 2–7. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2011

Rental Units per 100 Renters 

Income Category Affordable Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 58.2 35.8 31.1

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 92.4 64.6 57.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 132.5 102.9 92.7

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

Renters with very low incomes find 92 affordable units, 65 

affordable and available units, and only 57 affordable, available, 

and physically adequate units per 100 renters. Renters with 

low incomes find that the affordable and available rental stock 

is sufficient to house them all, although a minimal proportion of 

units have physical problems.

Overall, the supply of affordable housing continued to worsen 

through 2011, but at a slackened pace from the 2007-to-2009 

period. Exhibit 2–8 illustrates that the supply of affordable 

housing stock for extremely low-income renters fell by 3 units 

per 100 renters from 2009 to 2011, from 61 to 58 units per 100 

renters. For very low-income renters, affordable units fell by 6 

units per 100 renters. 

EXHIBIT 2–8. TREND IN RENTAL HOUSING STOCK BY INCOME CATEGORY, 2007 TO 2011

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Change

Income Category 2007 2009 2011 2007–09 2009–11

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

 Affordable 76.2 61.0 58.2 –15.2 –2.8

 Affordable and available 44.2 35.7 35.8 –8.5 0.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI)

 Affordable 112.9 98.7 92.4 –14.2 –6.3

 Affordable and available 73.9 67.2 64.6 –6.7 –2.6

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

Affordable and available units did not decline as much from 2009 

to 2011 (by about 3 units per 100 very low-income renters) as did 

the broader affordable unit measure. Further, availability did not 

worsen significantly for extremely low-income renters, although 

the affordable stock ratio declined. Considering the significant 

increase in extremely low-income renters, stable availability 

estimates might be found if some renters who had incomes of 

slightly more than 30 percent of AMI and occupied extremely 

low-income units in 2009 lived in the same units but had incomes 

of less than 30 percent of AMI 2 years later. This change would 

flip the units from “unavailable” to “available” for extremely lowincome households.

Geography of Supply

The preceding discussion shows that worst case needs are 

dispersed across the nation, yet can be concentrated in certain 

geographic areas, and that spatial variation 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 
16 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

households is simply 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.

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. Utility costs account 

for 17 percent of gross rent for the average very low-income 

renter. Variations in climate across regions can cause utility costs 

to constitute significantly different percentages of gross rent, and 

make different contributions to severe rent burdens. 

Exhibit 2–9 presents a distribution of major U.S. geographies in 

2011 by the prevalence of worst case needs and the percentage 

of gross rent that renters with severe cost burdens pay for utilities.

40%

50%

60%

10% 20% 30% 40%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Percent of very low income renters with severe rent burden

EXHIBIT 2–9. PREVALENCE OF SEVERE RENT BURDENS AND 

MEAN CONTRIBUTION OF UTILITY COSTS TO SEVERE RENT 

BURDENS, BY REGION AND METRO LOCATION, 2011

Utility costs as percent of gross rent

for renters with severe burdens

Northeast nonmetro

Northeast central city

Midwest nonmetro

South suburb

West suburb

Midwest suburb

South nonmetro Midwest central city

West central city

South central city

West nonmetro

Northeast suburb

Among very low-income renters with severe rent burdens, the 

variation in average utility costs is not great. Mean utility costs 

reported in the AHS were least in the West, at $105 per month, 

followed by $125 in the Northeast, $146 in the Midwest, and 

$180 in the South.30 In every region, however, utility costs for 

very low-income renters who face severe rent burdens averaged 

38 percent, or $42 per month, more than utility costs for renters 

without severe burdens.

Utility costs account for a relatively small fraction—as little as 11 

percent—of severe rent burdens in metropolitan areas of the West, 

where newer housing stock, high contract rents, and temperate 

climate tend to coexist. By contrast, utility costs contribute more 

than 20 percent of the average severe rent burden of very lowincome renters in the South, the Midwest, and nonmetropolitan 

areas, and they reach 39 percent in nonmetropolitan areas 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 2–10 summarizes the affordable 

housing supply for cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. 

Notably, although cities and suburbs display comparable 

available-unit ratios—with 31 to 36 units per 100 extremely lowincome renters and 60 to 64 units per 100 very low-income 

renters—the underlying supply of affordable units is more 

constrained in central cities than in suburbs.

30 The AHS questions about utility costs produce different results from other surveys, such as the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS). RECS data do not include nonenergy utility costs as the AHS does, but RECS 2009 indicates that renters pay $157 per month for energy in the Northeast, 

$90 in the West, $119 in the Midwest, and $126 in the South. See the “Consumption and Expenditures by End Use” tables at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/

residential/data/2009/index.cfm.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 17

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EXHIBIT 2–10. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, BY INCOME CATEGORY IN CENTRAL CITIES, 

SUBURBS, AND NONMETROPOLITAN AREAS, 2011

Housing Units per 100 Renters

Income Category Affordable Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Central cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 49.4 35.9 30.5

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 84.7 64.1 55.8

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 127.1 102.7 91.0

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 56.1 30.9 28.0

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 88.3 59.8 54.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 135.4 101.0 92.9

Nonmetropolitan areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 86.9 45.8 38.8

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 121.2 76.0 66.8

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 139.6 107.5 96.3

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

Further, the relationship between the ratios for affordable units 

and affordable-and-available units highlights differences by 

metropolitan location. The difference between the measures 

reflects the joint effect of the two factors presented in Exhibit 

2–4: low vacancy rates for affordable units and the occupancy of 

affordable units by higher income renters. 

Exhibit 2–10 reveals that losses of affordable units to unavailability 

are less severe in denser, more urban areas. In central cities, 

about 23 otherwise-affordable units are unavailable per 100 very 

low-income renters.31 By comparison, 35 affordable units are 

unavailable per 100 renters in suburbs, and 47 affordable units 

are unavailable per 100 renters in nonmetropolitan areas. 

A smaller reduction of availability in central city areas may flow 

from the benefits of the more robust and efficient 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 2–10 is the extent of 

differences between the ratios of available units and adequate 

units. Suburban areas do better in this analysis, likely reflecting 

less age in the housing stock. Adding the adequacy test reduces 

the affordable-and-available ratio by 6 units per 100 very lowincome renters in the suburbs compared with reductions of 8 

units in central cities and 9 units in nonmetropolitan areas. 

Adjusting the affordable-and-available ratio for differences in 

adequacy nearly eliminates the city-versus-suburb difference in 

the affordable rental stock.32 The adequacy test also considerably 

reduces the affordable housing advantage of nonmetropolitan 

areas relative to denser areas. Even in nonmetropolitan areas, 

fewer than 7 of every 10 very low-income renters could find an 

adequate unit that was affordable and available for their use.

Rental Stock by Region 

Rental markets are constrained for extremely low-income renters 

across all four census regions despite substantial variation in the 

availability of affordable rental units. Exhibit 2–11 illustrates that the 

Midwest shows the best availability, with 81 units per 100 very lowincome renters. The West is worst off, with 53 units per 100 very 

31 These estimates of unavailable units reflect the difference between the estimates of affordable units and affordable-and-available units presented in Exhibit 2–10, and 

they differ from the estimates of units occupied by higher income renters shown in Exhibit 2–4 by covering the full very low-income category: units affordable at incomes 

of 0 to 50 percent of AMI rather than of only 30 to 50 percent of AMI. 32 Only 13 percent of suburban rental units were built before 1940 compared with 27 percent of central-city units and 20 percent of nonmetropolitan units (Census Bureau, 

2008: table 4-1).
18 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

low-income renters, and the Northeast and South have 65 and 63 

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. In two regions, the West and the 

Northeast, not even enough affordable units are available for lowincome renters with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI. 

EXHIBIT 2–11. RENTAL HOUSING STOCK, BY REGION AND INCOME CATEGORY, 2011

Housing Units per 100 Renters

Income Category Affordable Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate

Northeast

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 62.9 40.3 33.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 89.5 65.3 55.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 122.7 96.6 83.5

Midwest

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 61.6 37.8 33.8

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 120.2 80.8 73.4

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 141.9 110.5 101.2

South

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 59.2 36.0 30.9

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 91.6 63.1 55.4

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 139.1 106.8 96.3

West

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 50.1 30.3 27.3

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 74.2 53.4 47.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 123.5 96.4 87.8

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

On a metropolitan basis, adding the adequacy test raised 

the hurdle for renters highest in nonmetropolitan areas. On a 

regional basis, adding the adequacy test restricts supply most 

substantially in the South and in the Northeast.

Nevertheless, the primary point in Exhibit 2–11 is that extremely 

low-income renters continue to face severely constrained markets 

across all four regions. No more than two in five extremely lowincome renters have an affordable unit available to them in 

any region. No more than one in three extremely low-income 

renters can expect to find a unit that is affordable, available, and 

physically adequate.

Dynamics of Supply

In addition to understanding the spatial aspects of affordable 

housing supply, considering the trends in supply over time is 

useful, both nationally and by metropolitan location.

Trends in National Rental Stock

The availability of the affordable rental stock has shown a degree 

of stability for 25 years. As Exhibit 2–12 illustrates, however, that 

stability is waning and housing shortages are approaching new 

extremes. The number of affordable and available rental units per 

100 renters is shown for the four standard income categories from 

1985 to 2011. Since 2005, the most vulnerable renters—the very 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 19

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

low-income majority and the extremely low-income subset—have 

faced the tightest market for affordable housing since HUD first 

estimated this measure in 1985. 

0

100

60

80

120

40

Rental units per 100 renters

20

EXHIBIT 2–12. AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE 

RENTAL UNITS, 1985 TO 2011 

Year

1985 ‘87 ‘91 ‘95 ‘99 ‘03 ‘07 ‘89 ‘93 ‘97 2001 ‘05 ‘09

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

‘11

Moderate income (>80% AMI)

Low income (0–80% AMI)

Very low-income (0–50% AMI)

Extremely low-income (0–30% AMI)

The availability of affordable housing continued to decrease 

to a record low for very low-income renters in 2011. Extremely 

low-income renters first experienced their severely deteriorating 

conditions in 2005 and 2009. Middle-income renters, by 

contrast, continue to experience a stable and adequate supply of 

affordable rental units. The unusual variations observed in rental 

housing during the 2003-through-2009 period may be tied to the 

gyrations of the homeownership market in recent years—a topic 

explored further in Section 3.

Trends in Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location

Exhibits 2–13 and 2–14 show how affordability-and-availability 

ratios have changed across central cities, suburbs, and 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

Exhibit 2–13 presents significant declines in the stock of affordable 

units relative to the number of renters. From 2007 to 2011, the 

affordability ratio declined by 18 to 22 units per 100 very lowincome renters in central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan 

areas. The greatest declines occurred during the first half of the 

period, from 2007 to 2009, but declines continued between 

2009 and 2011.

EXHIBIT 2–13. TRENDS IN SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, BY METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2007–11

Affordable Units per 100 Renters

Metropolitan Status 2007 2009 2011 Change 

2007–11

Change 

2009–11

Central cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 60.7 48.5 49.4 –11.3 0.9

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 102.7 88.8 84.7 –18.0 –4.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 133.9 129.8 127.1 –6.8 –2.7

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 79.1 60.9 56.1 –22.9 –4.8

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 110.6 97.0 88.3 –22.3 –8.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 146.5 139.4 135.4 –11.1 –4.0

Nonmetropolitan areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 108.3 97.0 86.9 –21.5 –10.1

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 139.7 127.6 121.2 –18.5 –6.5

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 141.5 143.9 139.6 –1.9 –4.3

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
20 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The affordable stock for extremely low-income renters fell behind 

the most in suburbs and nonmetropolitan areas. In the most 

recent 2-year AHS period, the overall stock for extremely lowincome renters edged upward in central cities.

Despite the substantial declines in the affordable stock ratio from 

2007 to 2011, declines in the affordable-and-available ratio were 

less dramatic. Exhibit 2–14 shows that the available units ratio 

declined by 8 to 11 units per 100 very low-income renters during 

the 4 years from 2007 to 2011 compared with the affordable units 

ratio decline of 18 to 22 units. During the most recent 2-year AHS 

period, the availability of affordable housing continued to drift 

downward in most areas, with the notable exception of a slight 

improvement for extremely low-income renters living in central 

cities and a minimal change for extremely low-income renters 

in nonmetropolitan areas. Suburbs, which already had the 

worst availability of affordable rental stock in 2007, experienced 

continuing declines in availability during the following 2 years.

EXHIBIT 2–14. TRENDS IN SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE UNITS,

BY METROPOLITAN LOCATION, 2007–11

Affordable and Available Units per 100 Renters

Metropolitan Status 2007 2009 2011 Change 

2007–11

Change 

2009–11

Central cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 41.4 34.4 35.9 –5.5 1.5

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 72.3 65.9 64.1 –8.3 –1.8

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 105.5 104.8 102.7 –2.7 –2.1

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 42.7 32.4 30.9 –11.9 –1.5

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 68.1 61.9 59.8 –8.2 –2.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 104.3 102.2 101.0 –3.3 –1.2

Nonmetropolitan areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 53.0 45.6 45.8 –7.2 0.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 86.7 81.0 76.0 –10.8 –5.0

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 107.4 108.6 107.5 0.1 –1.1

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

Summary

Worst case needs are common in every region and metropolitan 

category across the United States. Nationally, 43.9 percent of 

very low-income renters had worst case needs in 2011, with 

slightly greater prevalence in the West, in the South, and in 

suburbs. The number of worst case needs increased significantly 

in every region from 2009 to 2011, with the West accounting 

for 47.7 percent of the increase, the South 26.7 percent, the 

Northeast 14.6 percent, and the Midwest 11.0 percent.

New analysis shows that utility costs play a significant role in 

causing the severe rent burdens that trigger worst case needs. 

On average, very low-income renters who face severe rent 

burdens report utility costs 38 percent greater than very lowincome renters who do not face severe burdens. 

Housing assistance, including that provided by HUD, is an 

important preventer of worst case needs among very low-income 

renters. Nationwide, 23.8 percent of very low-income renters, or 

4.59 million households, report receiving housing assistance. For 

every very low-income renter who is assisted, however, 1.8 renters 

have worst case needs for such assistance.

With 92 rental units affordable for every 100 very low-income 

renters, the nation no longer has enough affordable units to 

house this population even if allocation were perfect. 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 2011, the vacancy rate for units affordable at extremely low 

incomes was only 5.4 percent compared with 13.1 percent for 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 21

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

units affordable at more than 80 percent of AMI. The disparity 

in vacancy rates across rent affordability categories diminished 

between 2009 and 2011, 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 very low-income renter is made more stringent 

by adding availability as a constraint, the ratio decreases from 92 

affordable units to only 65 affordable and available units per 100 

very low-income renters, and it decreases from 58 to 36 per 100 

extremely low-income renters. Higher income families occupy 38.4 

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 2011 is only 57 per 100 very low-income 

renters and only 31 per 100 extremely low-income renters.

The long trend of market stability in the national availability of 

affordable units began weakening in 2003, and the availability 

of affordable units has significantly worsened. During the 2007-

to-2011 period, the number of affordable and available units per 

100 very low-income renters decreased by 8 in central cities 

and suburbs and by 11 in nonmetropolitan areas, although the 

greatest part of those losses occurred from 2007 to 2009. 

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.
22 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 23

SECTION 3

UNDERSTANDING THE TREND 

IN WORST CASE NEEDS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Section 2 demonstrated that the expansion of worst case needs is related to 

decreasing 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 numbers of units, numbers of renters, and rents during the 2009-to-2011 period 

underlie this result.

We find that the lingering homeownership crisis and sluggish economic recovery 

after the 2007-to-2009 recession continue to cause increases in worst case needs. 

The principal factors have shifted significantly, however. Of the 1.38 million cases of 

worst case needs that emerged from 2009 to 2011, 76.6 percent can be attributed 

to demographic changes that affected the population of unassisted very low-income 

renters, and 23.4 percent can be attributed to changes in incidence that resulted 

from the new market pressures those renters generated. 

The formation of new households, changes of tenure from homeownership to 

renting, and falling tenant incomes added many households to the category 

of very low-income renters with worst case needs. As a secondary effect, new 

competition for affordable rental units increased the presence of higher income 

renters in affordable units, absorbed vacant units, and drove up rents. The housing 

market accommodated a substantial portion of new rental demand, which already 

was building in 2009, through the construction of new housing and conversion of 

homeowner units, however.

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand

This report has 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 this population 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 change. 

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 
24 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

to estimate their relative importance. Then we identify how much 

various demographic factors affected the population change.

Household Formation, Tenure, and Income Factors

The population of unassisted very low-income renters increased 

14.3 percent from 2009 to 2011, from 12.84 million to 14.67 

million. During the same period, the prevalence of worst case 

needs in this population increased from 55.2 to 57.8 percent. 

From these facts, we can attribute 1.06 million new cases of worst 

case needs (76.6 percent) to demographic changes and 320,000 

new cases (23.4 percent) to changes in the prevalence of severe 

problems, together totaling the 1.38 million new instances of 

worst case needs observed in the American Housing Survey 

between 2009 and 2011.33

The 1.06 million new worst case needs resulting from demographic 

shifts can be further broken down, as illustrated by the first four 

columns of Exhibit 3–1.

0

1,500

1,000

500

Household formation

Source: HUD-PD&R analysis of American Housing Survey data Added worst case needs (thousands)

EXHIBIT 3–1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CAUSES

OF INCREASING WORST CASE NEEDS, 2009 TO 2011

Increases Net result

+213

+514

+203

+127

+323 1,380

Decreases

Renter share

Renter income losses

Rental assistance gap

Affordable unit competition

Net change in worst case needs

− Household formation. We attribute more than 210,000 

new cases of worst case needs, or 15.4 percent of the 

increase, to household formation. The nation added 3.22 

million new households between 2009 and 2011.34 The 

household formation rate of 2.9 percent during this 2-year 

period exceeded the average biennial increase of 1.8 percent 

observed in AHS samples since 2001.

− Renter share of households. We attribute a substantial 

510,000 new cases of worst case needs, or 37.3 percent 

of the increase, to shifts in tenure between homeownership 

and renting. The nation added 3.47 million renter households 

from 2009 to 2011, an increase of 9.8 percent, which 

surpassed the increase in households. By comparison, the 

average biennial growth rate in renter households since 

2001 is 2.9 percent.

− Renter income losses. Reductions of renters’ incomes 

account for 200,000 new cases of worst case needs, or 

14.7 percent of the increase from 2009 to 2011. Shrinking 

incomes accounted for 2.15 million new very low-income 

renters, and the growth rate of 12.5 percent exceeded 

growth in renters on a proportional basis. The average 

biennial change in the number of very low-income renters 

since 2001 is 5.4 percent.

− Rental assistance gap. We attribute a 9.2-percent increase 

in worst case needs, or 130,000 new cases, to lack of rental 

assistance. The 2009-to-2011 increase in very low-income 

renters who lack housing assistance was 1.83 million. The 

14.3-percent increase exceeded the 12.5-percent increase 

in very low-income renters. Biennial changes in unassisted 

very low-income renters average 11.4 percent since 2001.

This analysis shows that demographic factors were the primary 

cause of increases in worst case needs between 2009 and 2011, 

unlike the market-driven increases of 2007 to 2009. Tenure shift 

alone explains 37.3 percent of new worst case needs in 2011, 

and the other demographic factors that increased the number 

of unassisted very low-income renters explain 38.4 percent. 

Only 23.4 percent of new problems remain to be attributed to an 

inadequate market response that increased prevalence of worst 

case needs. 

Aftermath of the Homeownership Crisis 

and Recession

The Great Recession that the United States endured from 

December 2007 to June 2009 (NBER, 2010) was caused in large 

part by a financial and mortgage crisis. By September 2009, 15.0 

million workers (9.8 percent of the labor force) were unemployed, 

and economic troubles persisted in September 2011, with 13.9 

million workers (9.0 percent) unemployed.35

33 The demographic effect equals the new prevalence times the numerical increase in renters, and the prevalence effect is the increase in prevalence times the baseline 

number of renters. 34 The Census Bureau benchmarked the 2011 AHS by assigning new weights so specified subgroup totals correspond with those found in the 2010 census. The 2009 AHS 

was benchmarked to the 2000 census. Rebenchmarking may account for a significant portion of reported household formation and especially of the significant change 

in renter share in the AHS between 2009 and 2011. A more detailed analysis is presented in Appendix F. 35 Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Data were extracted on April 4, 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 25

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Numerous homeowners became renters in the aftermath of the 

recession and mortgage crisis, and the tenure shift accelerated 

from 2009 to 2011. Homeownership rates declined by 0.6 points, 

from 68.1 percent in 2007 to 67.4 percent in 2009, and then 

they declined by another 1.3 points, to 66.1 percent, in 2011. 

Homeownership losses generally occurred earlier for households 

with incomes of less than the Area Median Income, with the 

homeownership rate among those households declining by 

0.9 points from 2007 to 2009 before stabilizing at 51.1 percent 

between 2009 and 2011.

Some shifts in tenure are driven by the underlying demographics. 

Despite the net formation of 570,000 households annually during 

the 4 years from 2008 through 2011, the number of independent 

households of prime age for homeownership declined 

substantially. Households with heads ages 35 through 44 years 

declined by 410,000 annually, and family households comprising 

a husband, a wife, and children declined by 330,000 annually 

(HUD-PD&R, 2012a). 

Falling household incomes added to the number of very lowincome renters between 2009 and 2011. The income of the 

median renter declined 1.5 percent during this period, even as 

the median rent increased 4.1 percent.

Some households that change tenure from owning to renting are 

likely to have incomes that keep them from having worst case 

needs. Nevertheless, they occupy and increase demand for 

rental units and thereby put upward pressure on rents for more 

vulnerable renters. 

The market accommodated some of the increased rental demand 

through more productive use of the existing housing stock, 

however. Exhibit 3–2 shows the significant increase in renter 

households, which was made greater by the decreasing number 

of owner households. The net increase in total housing units 

was less than the net increase in total households, as 310,000 

vacant units and 480,000 seasonal units entered into year-round 

occupancy or were demolished. These data, although not directly 

addressing housing affordability, do directly influence it.

EXHIBIT 3–2. HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING UNIT CHANGE, 2009 TO 2011

Households and Units (thousands)

2009 2011 Change

Renter households (occupied year-round units) 35,378 38,816 3,438 

Owner households (occupied year-round units) 76,428 76,091 –337 

Total households (occupied year-round units) 111,806 114,907 3,101 

Vacant units (year round) 13,688 13,379 –309 

Seasonal units 4,618 4,133 –485 

Total units (occupied, vacant, or seasonal) 130,112 132,419 2,307 

Source: Census Bureau (2011); Census Bureau (2013). 

Affordable Housing Supply 

and Demand

Exhibits 2–8 and 2–13 presented the continuing decline in the 

availability of affordable rental units, but it also is clear that 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 3–3 examines the factors responsible for the change in the 

availability of affordable units. In addition to vacant and seasonal 

housing being used more completely, rental construction also 

accelerated from 2009 to 2011.36 The number of rental units 

increased by 3.33 million (8.4 percent), from 39.74 to 43.08 

million. The stock of owner-occupied housing decreased by 

nearly 760,000 units from 2009 to 2011, suggesting that the 

number of homeowner units converted to rental units following 

foreclosure helped offset some of the sharp increase in rental 

demand from former owner occupants of those units.37 The 3.47 

million new renter households absorbed all the net increase of 

rental units and also occupied 140,000 previously vacant units.38

36 HUD tabulations of units for housing mismatch analysis show 78.351 million total homeowner units in 2011 compared with the 79.107 million units recorded in 2009.

37 The net loss of owner-occupied units reflects changes from new construction, demolition, and conversion. Construction was completed on 943,000 new single-family 

detached homes during 2010 and 2011. See HUD-PD&R (2012a: Exhibit 4). 38 HUD estimates, presented in Exhibit A–12, suggest that 140,000 units of the 310,000-unit reduction in vacant units shown in Exhibit 3–2 for 2009 to 2011 were vacant rental units.
26 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

EXHIBIT 3–3. FACTORS EXPLAINING CHANGES IN RENTAL HOUSING AVAILABILITY RATE, 2009 TO 2011

Extremely Low 

Income (0–30% AMI)

Very Low Income 

(0–50% AMI)

Low Income 

(0–80% AMI) Total

Cumulative households (thousands)

2009 10,270 17,427 24,595 35,396 

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

Percent change +14.6% +10.6% +9.8% +9.8%

Cumulative affordable & available 

rental units (thousands)

2009 3,665 11,710 25,715 39,744 

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

Percent change +15.1% +6.3% +8.1% +8.4%

Income limit (median, current dollars)

2009 16,300 27,150 43,450 —

2011 17,150 28,580 44,950 —

Percent change +5.2% +5.3% +3.5% —

Median household income 

(all renters, current dollars)

2009 — — — 28,400 

2011 — — — 27,984 

Percent change — — — –1.5%

Median monthly housing cost 

(all renters, current dollars)

2009 — — — 784 

2011 — — — 816 

Percent change — — — +4.1%

AMI = Area Median Income. 

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

Further, unlike the 2007-to-2009 period, the number of units 

affordable at extremely low incomes increased from 6.27 million 

to 6.85 million, whereas the number of units affordable at 

incomes of 30 to 50 percent of AMI was essentially unchanged at 

10.95 million. The numbers of units both affordable and available 

increased for both these groups, as shown in Exhibit 3–3.

Some of the increase in renters with extremely low and very low 

incomes 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 3–3 shows that these threshold values increased between 

3.5 and 5.3 percent, thereby capturing higher income renters in 

2011 than in 2009. During the same 2-year period, the median 

renter’s income decreased 1.5 percent, suggesting a generalized 

decline in incomes. 

These dual shifts explain the increases in lower income renters 

from 2009 to 2011. The extremely low-income category 

experienced the greatest increase, 14.6 percent. Very low-income 

renters increased 10.6 percent, and low-income renters increased 

9.8 percent. These increases, in the aggregate, exceeded the 

increase in the rental stock resulting from construction, tenure 

conversion, and vacant-unit absorption. 

The excess of demand relative to supply explains why competition 

for the most affordable units gained strength and why the median 

gross rent increased 4.1 percent from 2009 to 2011, causing rent 

burdens to be more prevalent and more severe.
27

Concluding Summary

An analysis of the effects of incidence and of population change 

during the 2009-to-2011 period indicates that 1.06 million 

new cases of worst case needs (76.6 percent) resulted from 

demographic changes, and 320,000 new cases (23.4 percent) 

resulted from increases in prevalence. 

Four demographic factors continue to increase the number of 

unassisted, very low-income renters who are susceptible to 

worst case needs. National household formation accounts for 

a sizable 15.4 percent of the worst case needs that emerged 

from 2009 to 2011. Because of a significant decline of 1.3 points 

in the homeownership rate, an increase in the renter share of 

households was great enough to account for 37.3 percent of new 

cases of worst case needs. Renter income losses (and changes 

in income limits) that caused renters to slip into the very lowincome population accounted for 14.7 percent of new cases. 

Finally, the gap in rental assistance relative to the growing need 

accounts for 9.2 percent of new cases. 

Increases in the number of unassisted, very low-income renters 

represent greater demand for affordable housing that, unless met 

by a greater supply of affordable units, will intensify competition, 

drive up rents, and increase the prevalence of worst case needs.

The 23.4 percent of new cases that are attributable to increased 

prevalence suggest that the housing market from 2009 to 2011 

was much more responsive to the increased demand than 

it was from 2007 to 2009, when the prevalence of worst case 

needs among very low-income renters increased 41.0 percent. 

Existing housing stock was used more productively between 

2009 and 2011, as the supply of year-round vacant units and 

seasonally occupied units decreased. A significant loss of 

760,000 homeowner units from 2009 to 2011 suggests that the 

conversion of foreclosed homeowner units to rental units helped 

offset some of the sharp increase in rental demand from former 

owner occupants of those units. The number of units affordable at 

extremely low incomes actually increased more than the number 

of renters needing them, so availability was stable for the poorest 

group, although it worsened for those with higher incomes.39

Overall, the 3.47 million new renter households absorbed all the 

net increase of rental units and also occupied 140,000 previously 

vacant units.

The median renter’s income decreased 1.5 percent from 2009 to 

2011, whereas the median gross rent increased 4.1 percent. The 

broad strokes of the most recent substantial (19-percent) increase 

in the number of worst case needs should not be obscured, 

therefore, by the nuances of the story. The recession and 

foreclosure crisis continue to have major import for the affordable 

rental housing market, and the problem of worst case needs now 

affects 7.4 percent of all households in the United States. Increases 

39 Units will switch from “unavailable” to “available” for extremely low-income renters if occupied by a household of which income declines from the 30-to-50 percent of AMI 

category to the 0-to-30 percent of AMI category.

in the number of very low-income renters continue to exceed 

increases in the affordable rental stock from all sources, even when 

that stock is augmented by rental assistance and subsidies. The 

69-percent increase in worst case needs since 2001 reflects the 

central fact that the number of extremely low-income renters has 

increased by 3.0 million, and that increase has not been matched 

by increases in affordable units or housing assistance.

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
28 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 29

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

APPENDIX A

DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS 

AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

TABLE A–1A. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, 2009 and 2011 ...............30

TABLE A–1B. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income, 2009 and 2011 ...............31

TABLE A–2A. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001 to 2011: Number of Households ................ 32

TABLE A–2B.Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001 to 2011: Percent of Households ................ 33

TABLE A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households, by Relative Income, 2009 and 2011 ..... 34

TABLE A–4. Prevalence of Housing Problems Among Renters, by Relative Income, 2009 and 2011 ........... 35

TABLE A–5A.Prevalence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Household Type, 

2009 and 2011 ...............................................................................................38

TABLE A–5B.Prevalence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters Having Nonelderly 

People With Disabilities, by Household Type, 2009 and 2011 .....................................40

TABLE A–6A.Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters, by Household Type, 2011 ..43

TABLE A–6B.Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters, by Household 

Type, 2011 ................................................................................................................45

TABLE A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income, Worst Case Renters, by 

Household Type, 2011 .......................................................................................47

TABLE A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income, Worst Case Renters, 

by Household Type, 2011 .................................................................................. 49

TABLE A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Race and Ethnicity, 

2009 and 2011 ...............................................................................................51

TABLE A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Region, 2009 and 2011 ...53

TABLE A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters, by Metropolitan 

Location, 2009 and 2011 ..................................................................................55

TABLE A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units, by Affordability of Rent and Income of 

Occupants, 2009 and 2011................................................................................57

TABLE A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them, by Relative Income, 1999 to 2011 ...58

TABLE A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households, by Relative Income, 

2009 and 2011 ...............................................................................................59

TABLE A–15. Housing Conditions of Households Having Nonelderly People with Disabilities, by 

Disability Type, 2009 and 2011 ...........................................................................60
30 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2009 AND 2011

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

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 

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 

2009

Total Households (thousands) 9,961 7,157 7,168 5,658 5,452 35,396 

Unassisted with severe problems 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229 

Unassisted with no problems 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211 

Assisted 3,340 934 354 146 97 4,871 

Any with severe problems 6,536 2,139 662 208 144 9,688 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 6,407 1,985 469 97 41 9,000 

Severely inadequate housing 387 194 204 111 102 998 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,692 3,467 2,851 1,115 552 9,678 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,486 3,205 2,381 728 181 7,981 

Moderately inadequate housing 323 392 407 287 274 1,684 

Crowded housing 161 302 290 130 111 993 

Any with no problems 1,732 1,551 3,655 4,335 4,757 16,030 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 31

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–1B. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF OWNER HOUSEHOLDS BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2009 AND 2011

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2011 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% All Incomes

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 

Assisted

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 

2009

Total Households (thousands) 7,028 8,201 12,383 15,097 33,755 76,465 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,390 2,612 2,128 1,231 812 11,174 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,316 2,226 3,757 3,943 3,754 14,996 

Unassisted with no problems 1,322 3,363 6,498 9,923 29,189 50,295 

Assisted — — — — — —

Any with severe problems 4,390 2,612 2,128 1,231 812 11,174 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 4,309 2,511 1,946 1,090 602 10,458 

Severely inadequate housing 159 146 202 149 213 868 

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,316 2,226 3,757 3,943 3,754 14,996 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,183 1,999 3,383 3,598 3,225 13,388 

Moderately inadequate housing 180 156 299 255 440 1,331 

Crowded housing 85 159 224 171 156 795 

Any with no problems 1,322 3,363 6,498 9,923 29,189 50,295 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
32 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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 TO 2011:

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Total Households (thousands) 105,435 105,868 108,901 110,719 111,861 115,076

Unassisted with severe problems 13,494 13,398 16,142 16,944 19,259 20,717

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 19,217 19,790 20,849 22,752 23,225 24,079

Unassisted with no problems 66,445 66,468 65,362 65,862 64,506 64,983

Assisted 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871 5,298

Cost burden >50% of income 13,330 13,188 16,433 17,140 19,458 20,781

Cost burden 30–50% of income 16,923 17,856 19,403 21,153 21,818 22,369

Severely inadequate housing 2,108 1,971 2,023 1,805 1,866 2,126

Moderately inadequate housing 4,504 4,311 4,177 3,954 3,884 4,200

Crowded housing 2,631 2,559 2,621 2,529 2,509 1,923

Renter Households (thousands) 33,727 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396 38,867

Unassisted with severe problems 5,758 5,887 6,860 6,993 8,085 9,548

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 7,283 7,557 7,303 8,445 8,229 9,194

Unassisted with no problems 14,407 13,958 13,240 14,455 14,211 14,828

Assisted 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871 5,298

Cost burden >50% of income 6,412 6,477 7,891 7,793 9,000 10,391

Cost burden 30–50% of income 6,916 7,468 7,502 8,340 8,240 9,124

Severely inadequate housing 1,168 1,038 1,100 1,073 998 1,204

Moderately inadequate housing 2,508 2,525 2,542 2,400 2,264 2,602

Crowded housing 1,658 1,615 1,635 1,511 1,499 1,072

Owner Households (thousands) 71,708 72,254 74,950 75,665 76,465 76,209

Unassisted with severe problems 7,736 7,511 9,282 9,951 11,174 11,169

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 11,934 12,233 13,546 14,307 14,996 14,885

Unassisted with no problems 52,038 52,510 52,122 51,407 50,295 50,155

Assisted — — — — — —

Cost burden >50% of income 6,918 6,711 8,542 9,347 10,458 10,390

Cost burden 30–50% of income 10,007 10,388 11,901 12,813 13,578 13,245

Severely inadequate housing 940 933 923 732 868 922

Moderately inadequate housing 1,996 1,786 1,635 1,554 1,620 1,598

Crowded housing 973 944 986 1,018 1,010 851

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 33

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–2B. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF RENTERS AND OWNERS, 2001 TO 2011:

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Total Households 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%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 18.2% 18.7% 19.1% 20.5% 20.8% 20.9%

Unassisted with no problems 63.0% 62.8% 60.0% 59.5% 57.7% 56.5%

Assisted 6.0% 5.9% 6.0% 4.7% 4.4% 4.6%

Cost burden >50% of income 12.6% 12.5% 15.1% 15.5% 17.4% 18.1%

Cost burden 30–50% of income 16.1% 16.9% 17.8% 19.1% 19.5% 19.4%

Severely inadequate housing 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 4.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.6%

Crowded housing 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 1.7%

Renter Households 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%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 21.6% 22.5% 21.5% 24.1% 23.2% 23.7%

Unassisted with no problems 42.7% 41.5% 39.0% 41.2% 40.1% 38.2%

Assisted 18.6% 18.5% 19.3% 14.7% 13.8% 13.6%

Cost burden >50% of income 19.0% 19.3% 23.2% 22.2% 25.4% 26.7%

Cost burden 30–50% of income 20.5% 22.2% 22.1% 23.8% 23.3% 23.5%

Severely inadequate housing 3.5% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8% 3.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 7.4% 7.5% 7.5% 6.8% 6.4% 6.7%

Crowded housing 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.3% 4.2% 2.8%

Owner Households 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%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 16.6% 16.9% 18.1% 18.9% 19.6% 19.5%

Unassisted with no problems 72.6% 72.7% 69.5% 67.9% 65.8% 65.8%

Assisted — — — — — —

Cost burden >50% of income 9.6% 9.3% 11.4% 12.4% 13.7% 13.6%

Cost burden 30–50% of income 14.0% 14.4% 15.9% 16.9% 17.8% 17.4%

Severely inadequate housing 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Crowded housing 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
34 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2009 AND 2011

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2011 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% All Incomes

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 

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 

2009

Total Unassisted Households 

(thousands)

6,621 6,223 6,814 5,512 5,355 30,525 

Any with severe problems 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 4,996 1,896 469 97 41 7,500 

Severely inadequate housing 278 165 186 107 101 837 

Any with nonsevere problems only 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 647 2,869 2,317 712 175 6,720 

Moderately inadequate housing 192 348 371 280 273 1,464 

Crowded housing 124 288 282 126 111 930 

Any with no problems 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 35

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–4. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS,

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Renter Households (thousands) 35,396 38,867 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 8,085 9,548 22.8% 24.6%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 8,229 9,194 23.2% 23.7%

Unassisted with no problems 14,211 14,828 40.1% 38.2%

Assisted 4,871 5,298 13.8% 13.6%

Any with severe problems 9,688 11,220 27.4% 28.9%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 9,000 10,391 25.4% 26.7%

Severely inadequate housing 998 1,204 2.8% 3.1%

[Rent burden only] 8,110 9,243 22.9% 23.8%

Any with nonsevere problems only 9,678 10,895 27.3% 28.0%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 7,981 9,124 22.5% 23.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 1,684 1,830 4.8% 4.7%

Crowded housing 993 1,072 2.8% 2.8%

[Rent burden only] 7,094 8,090 20.0% 20.8%

Any with no problems 16,030 16,753 45.3% 43.1%

Income 0–30% HAMFI (thousands) 9,961 11,774 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 5,069 6,209 50.9% 52.7%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 768 934 7.7% 7.9%

Unassisted with no problems 784 984 7.9% 8.4%

Assisted 3,340 3,648 33.5% 31.0%

Any with severe problems 6,536 7,716 65.6% 65.5%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 6,407 7,534 64.3% 64.0%

Severely inadequate housing 387 479 3.9% 4.1%

[Rent burden only] 5,712 6,613 57.3% 56.2%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,692 2,022 17.0% 17.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,486 1,663 14.9% 14.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 323 443 3.2% 3.8%

Crowded housing 161 220 1.6% 1.9%

[Rent burden only] 1,230 1,380 12.3% 11.7%

Any with no problems 1,732 2,037 17.4% 17.3%

(continued)
36 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–4. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS,

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Income 30–50% HAMFI (thousands) 7,157 7,492 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,026 2,266 28.3% 30.2%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 3,082 3,264 43.1% 43.6%

Unassisted with no problems 1,115 1,019 15.6% 13.6%

Assisted 934 943 13.1% 12.6%

Any with severe problems 2,139 2,386 29.9% 31.8%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,985 2,196 27.7% 29.3%

Severely inadequate housing 194 256 2.7% 3.4%

[Rent burden only] 1,815 2,015 25.4% 26.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 3,467 3,682 48.4% 49.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 3,205 3,465 44.8% 46.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 392 403 5.5% 5.4%

Crowded housing 302 350 4.2% 4.7%

[Rent burden only] 2,811 2,975 39.3% 39.7%

Any with no problems 1,551 1,424 21.7% 19.0%

Income 50-80% HAMFI (thousands) 7,168 7,750 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 644 683 9.0% 8.8%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 2,747 3,218 38.3% 41.5%

Unassisted with no problems 3,424 3,447 47.8% 44.5%

Assisted 354 403 4.9% 5.2%

Any with severe problems 662 712 9.2% 9.2%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 469 494 6.5% 6.4%

Severely inadequate housing 204 226 2.8% 2.9%

[Rent burden only] 446 460 6.2% 5.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,851 3,380 39.8% 43.6%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,381 2,880 33.2% 37.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 407 417 5.7% 5.4%

Crowded housing 290 300 4.0% 3.9%

[Rent burden only] 2,173 2,678 30.3% 34.6%

Any with no problems 3,655 3,659 51.0% 47.2%

(continued)
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 37

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–4. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG RENTERS,

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Income 80–120% HAMFI (thousands) 5,658 5,799 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 203 210 3.6% 3.6%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,089 1,174 19.2% 20.2%

Unassisted with no problems 4,220 4,218 74.6% 72.7%

Assisted 146 196 2.6% 3.4%

Any with severe problems 208 226 3.7% 3.9%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 97 98 1.7% 1.7%

Severely inadequate housing 111 130 2.0% 2.2%

[Rent burden only] 96 89 1.7% 1.5%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,115 1,199 19.7% 20.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 728 830 12.9% 14.3%

Moderately inadequate housing 287 299 5.1% 5.2%

Crowded housing 130 117 2.3% 2.0%

[Rent burden only] 705 793 12.5% 13.7%

Any with no problems 4,335 4,374 76.6% 75.4%

Income >120% HAMFI (thousands) 5,452 6,051 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 143 180 2.6% 3.0%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 544 604 10.0% 10.0%

Unassisted with no problems 4,668 5,159 85.6% 85.3%

Assisted 97 108 1.8% 1.8%

Any with severe problems 144 181 2.6% 3.0%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 41 68 0.8% 1.1%

Severely inadequate housing 102 114 1.9% 1.9%

[Rent burden only] 41 66 0.8% 1.1%

Any with nonsevere problems only 552 612 10.1% 10.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 181 287 3.3% 4.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 274 268 5.0% 4.4%

Crowded housing 111 85 2.0% 1.4%

[Rent burden only] 175 264 3.2% 4.4%

Any with no problems 4,757 5,259 87.3% 86.9%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
38 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–5A. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS,

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

Household Type 2009 2011 2009 2011

All Household Types (thousands) 17,118 19,267 100.0% 100.0%

Elderly Without Children (thousands) 3,636 3,934 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,328 1,470 36.5% 37.4%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 551 611 15.2% 15.5%

Unassisted with no problems 440 450 12.1% 11.4%

Assisted 1,316 1,403 36.2% 35.7%

Any with severe problems 1,747 1,891 48.0% 48.1%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,694 1,817 46.6% 46.2%

Severely inadequate housing 103 138 2.8% 3.5%

[Rent burden only] 1,555 1,631 42.8% 41.5%

Any with nonsevere problems only 921 1,028 25.3% 26.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 878 965 24.1% 24.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 97 125 2.7% 3.2%

Crowded housing 0 1 0.0% 0.0%

[Rent burden only] 824 902 22.7% 22.9%

Any with no problems 967 1,015 26.6% 25.8%

Families With Children (thousands) 6,758 7,561 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,734 3,236 40.5% 42.8%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,704 1,883 25.2% 24.9%

Unassisted with no problems 630 577 9.3% 7.6%

Assisted 1,691 1,866 25.0% 24.7%

Any with severe problems 3,444 3,979 51.0% 52.6%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 3,337 3,847 49.4% 50.9%

Severely inadequate housing 225 269 3.3% 3.6%

[Rent burden only] 2,963 3,404 43.8% 45.0%

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,250 2,532 33.3% 33.5%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,020 2,209 29.9% 29.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 260 329 3.8% 4.4%

Crowded housing 448 545 6.6% 7.2%

[Rent burden only] 1,602 1,719 23.7% 22.7%

(continued)
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 39

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–5A. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS,

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

Household Type 2009 2011 2009 2011

Other Family Households (thousands) 1,410 1,782 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 633 801 44.9% 44.9%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 372 465 26.4% 26.1%

Unassisted with no problems 168 223 11.9% 12.5%

Assisted 236 293 16.7% 16.4%

Any with severe problems 697 903 49.4% 50.7%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 671 877 47.6% 49.2%

Severely inadequate housing 53 57 3.8% 3.2%

[Rent burden only] 618 764 43.8% 42.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 453 573 32.1% 32.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 434 547 30.8% 30.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 45 73 3.2% 4.1%

Crowded housing 10 12 0.7% 0.7%

[Rent burden only] 399 490 28.3% 27.5%

Any with no problems 259 306 18.4% 17.2%

Other Nonfamily Households (thousands) 5,314 5,990 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,401 2,969 45.2% 49.6%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,222 1,238 23.0% 20.7%

Unassisted with no problems 662 754 12.5% 12.6%

Assisted 1,030 1,029 19.4% 17.2%

Any with severe problems 2,786 3,329 52.4% 55.6%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 2,689 3,189 50.6% 53.2%

Severely inadequate housing 199 270 3.7% 4.5%

[Rent burden only] 2,392 2,828 45.0% 47.2%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,535 1,571 28.9% 26.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,360 1,407 25.6% 23.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 314 319 5.9% 5.3%

Crowded housing 5 12 0.1% 0.2%

[Rent burden only] 1,217 1,244 22.9% 20.8%

Any with no problems 993 1,090 18.7% 18.2%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
40 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–5B. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS

HAVING NONELDERLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,*

 BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

Household Type 2009 2011 2009 2011

All Household Types (thousands) 2,583 3,068 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 986 1,306 38.2% 42.6%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 456 545 17.7% 17.8%

Unassisted with no problems 177 219 6.9% 7.1%

Assisted 964 997 37.3% 32.5%

Any with severe problems 1,343 1,656 52.0% 54.0%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,292 1,588 50.0% 51.8%

Severely inadequate housing 115 175 4.5% 5.7%

[Rent burden only] 1,054 1,325 40.8% 43.2%

Any with nonsevere problems only 762 893 29.5% 29.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 687 756 26.6% 24.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 122 193 4.7% 6.3%

Crowded housing 45 108 1.7% 3.5%

[Rent burden only] 597 609 23.1% 19.9%

Any with no problems 478 518 18.5% 16.9%

Elderly Without Children (thousands) 88 94 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 29 31 33.0% 33.0%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 29 29 33.0% 30.9%

Unassisted with no problems 6 9 6.8% 9.6%

Assisted 24 24 27.3% 25.5%

Any with severe problems 38 39 43.2% 41.5%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 38 34 43.2% 36.2%

Severely inadequate housing 0 9 0.0% 9.6%

[Rent burden only] 32 29 36.4% 30.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 38 40 43.2% 42.6%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 38 37 43.2% 39.4%

Moderately inadequate housing 9 6 10.2% 6.4%

Crowded housing 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

[Rent burden only] 29 34 33.0% 36.2%

Any with no problems 12 15 13.6% 16.0%

(continued)
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 41

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–5B. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS

HAVING NONELDERLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,* BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

Household Type 2009 2011 2009 2011

Families With Children (thousands) 1,002 1,259 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 416 544 41.5% 43.2%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 201 260 20.1% 20.7%

Unassisted with no problems 62 71 6.2% 5.6%

Assisted 323 384 32.2% 30.5%

Any with severe problems 556 700 55.5% 55.6%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 542 680 54.1% 54.0%

Severely inadequate housing 44 57 4.4% 4.5%

[Rent burden only] 427 570 42.6% 45.3%

Any with nonsevere problems only 307 388 30.6% 30.8%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 282 299 28.1% 23.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 40 93 4.0% 7.4%

Crowded housing 40 99 4.0% 7.9%

[Rent burden only] 229 208 22.9% 16.5%

Any with no problems 139 170 13.9% 13.5%

Other Family Households (thousands) 303 403 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 112 207 37.0% 51.4%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 62 71 20.5% 17.6%

Unassisted with no problems 29 33 9.6% 8.2%

Assisted 100 92 33.0% 22.8%

Any with severe problems 136 242 44.9% 60.0%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 134 233 44.2% 57.8%

Severely inadequate housing 9 24 3.0% 6.0%

[Rent burden only] 122 182 40.3% 45.2%

Any with nonsevere problems only 106 106 35.0% 26.3%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 101 99 33.3% 24.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 12 21 4.0% 5.2%

Crowded housing 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

[Rent burden only] 94 85 31.0% 21.1%

Any with no problems 61 55 20.1% 13.6%

(continued)
42 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–5B. PREVALENCE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS AMONG VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS

HAVING NONELDERLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,*

 BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

Household Type 2009 2011 2009 2011

Other Nonfamily Households (thousands) 1,190 1,312 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 429 524 36.1% 39.9%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 164 185 13.8% 14.1%

Unassisted with no problems 80 106 6.7% 8.1%

Assisted 517 497 43.4% 37.9%

Any with severe problems 613 675 51.5% 51.4%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 578 641 48.6% 48.9%

Severely inadequate housing 62 85 5.2% 6.5%

[Rent burden only] 473 544 39.7% 41.5%

Any with nonsevere problems only 311 359 26.1% 27.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 266 321 22.4% 24.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 61 73 5.1% 5.6%

Crowded housing 5 9 0.4% 0.7%

[Rent burden only] 245 282 20.6% 21.5%

Any with no problems 266 278 22.4% 21.2%

* Nonelderly household members reporting one or more of six measures of disability. 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 43

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, 2011 

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter Households (thousands) 19,267 3,934 7,561 1,782 5,990 

Number of Children 15,535 0 15,535 0 0 

Number of Persons 46,331 5,181 29,152 4,283 7,714 

Children/Household 0.81 0.00 2.05 0.00 0.00

Persons/Household 2.40 1.32 3.86 2.40 1.29

Unassisted with severe problems 8,475 1,470 3,236 801 2,969 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 4,198 611 1,883 465 1,238 

Unassisted with no problems 2,003 450 577 223 754 

Assisted 4,591 1,403 1,866 293 1,029 

Any with severe problems 10,102 1,891 3,979 903 3,329 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 9,730 1,817 3,847 877 3,189 

Severely inadequate housing 734 138 269 57 270 

[Rent burden only] 8,628 1,631 3,404 764 2,828 

Any with nonsevere problems only 5,704 1,028 2,532 573 1,571 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 5,128 965 2,209 547 1,407 

Moderately inadequate housing 846 125 329 73 319 

Crowded housing 570 1 545 12 12 

[Rent burden only] 4,354 902 1,719 490 1,244 

Any with no problems 3,462 1,015 1,050 306 1,090 

(continued)
44 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2011 

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 7,613 2,904 9 0 4,699 

Husband-wife family 3,943 595 2,582 766 0 

Female head 11,736 2,579 5,310 968 2,878 

Minority head 10,336 1,531 5,041 1,069 2,695 

AFDC/SSI income 3,642 830 1,594 380 837 

Social Security income 4,220 3,023 499 223 474 

Income below 50% poverty 4,862 654 2,264 340 1,604 

Income below poverty 10,805 1,861 4,906 761 3,277 

Income below 150% of poverty 15,915 2,981 6,934 1,300 4,701 

High school graduate 13,942 2,400 5,241 1,292 5,009 

Two+ years post high school 3,479 603 988 303 1,586 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 8,338 335 4,393 988 2,622 

 At least full time 5,742 180 3,251 724 1,586 

Earnings main source of income 9,353 319 4,739 1,068 3,227 

Housing rated poor 1,159 144 564 111 340 

Housing rated good+ 14,334 3,195 5,338 1,351 4,450 

Neighborhood rated poor 1,894 230 918 183 563 

Neighborhood rated good+ 11,986 2,988 4,409 972 3,617 

In central cities 8,804 1,647 3,336 848 2,973 

Nonmetro 3,358 766 1,301 235 1,057 

Suburbs 7,105 1,521 2,925 700 1,960 

Midwest 3,864 837 1,350 268 1,409 

Northeast 3,939 1,099 1,383 350 1,107 

South 6,487 1,126 2,702 622 2,038 

West 4,977 872 2,127 542 1,437 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 45

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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter Households (thousands) 11,774 2,563 4,505 860 3,846 

Number of children 9,687 0 9,687 0 0 

Number of persons 27,471 3,205 17,396 2,057 4,813 

Children/household 0.82 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.33 1.25 3.86 2.39 1.25

Unassisted with severe problems 6,209 1,054 2,413 535 2,207 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 934 196 394 48 295 

Unassisted with no problems 984 207 223 85 470 

Assisted 3,648 1,106 1,475 192 875 

Any with severe problems 7,716 1,433 3,118 626 2,539 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 7,534 1,395 3,055 621 2,463 

Severely inadequate housing 479 96 181 20 180 

[Rent burden only] 6,613 1,232 2,677 539 2,165 

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,022 524 827 107 563 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,663 487 647 98 431 

Moderately inadequate housing 443 76 160 19 188 

Crowded housing 220 0 215 2 4 

[Rent burden only] 1,380 448 473 86 372 

Any with no problems 2,037 606 560 127 744 

(continued)
46 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 5,169 2,011 9 0 3,149 

Husband-wife family 1,906 312 1,232 362 0 

Female head 7,474 1,704 3,365 493 1,911 

Minority head 6,603 1,110 3,098 539 1,856 

AFDC/SSI income 2,875 717 1,187 242 729 

Social Security income 2,621 1,880 282 107 353 

Income below 50% poverty 4,862 654 2,264 340 1,604 

Income below poverty 10,036 1,850 4,244 711 3,231 

Income below 150% of poverty 11,677 2,509 4,502 853 3,812 

High school graduate 8,086 1,455 2,925 600 3,106 

Two+ years post high school 1,882 339 510 133 900 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 3,057 86 1,761 287 922 

 At least full time 1,131 15 860 102 154 

Earnings main source of income 4,345 118 2,234 408 1,585 

Housing rated poor 768 99 386 55 228 

Housing rated good+ 8,594 2,060 3,081 661 2,792 

Neighborhood rated poor 1,295 169 621 103 402 

Neighborhood rated good+ 8,071 1,966 2,919 587 2,599 

In central cities 5,607 1,148 2,063 442 1,954 

Nonmetro 2,036 469 767 120 679 

Suburbs 4,132 946 1,675 298 1,213 

Midwest 2,388 521 824 126 917 

Northeast 2,538 739 886 170 743 

South 3,885 744 1,542 294 1,306 

West 2,964 559 1,254 270 880 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 47

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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families with 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter Households (thousands) 8,475 1,470 3,236 801 2,969 

Number of children 6,784 0 6,784 0 0 

Number of persons 20,659 1,960 12,741 1,943 4,014 

Children/household 0.80 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.44 1.33 3.94 2.43 1.35

Unassisted with severe problems 8,475 1,470 3,236 801 2,969 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 8,475 1,470 3,236 801 2,969 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 8,209 1,426 3,150 779 2,855 

Severely inadequate housing 566 97 189 52 227 

[Rent burden only] 7,284 1,275 2,796 672 2,541 

Any with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

[Rent burden only] — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —

(continued)
48 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 3,291 1,062 6 0 2,222 

Husband-wife family 1,752 230 1,152 370 0 

Female head 5,107 997 2,213 422 1,475 

Minority head 4,378 541 2,128 480 1,229 

AFDC/SSI income 1,328 213 638 181 295 

Social Security income 1,635 1,131 211 92 201 

Income below 50% poverty 2,518 363 1,088 211 857 

Income below poverty 5,612 817 2,450 477 1,868 

Income below 150% of poverty 7,510 1,194 3,084 680 2,553 

High school graduate 6,399 979 2,261 575 2,584 

Two+ years post high school 1,782 272 460 161 889 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 3,548 130 1,782 376 1,259 

 At least full time 1,982 65 1,128 228 562 

Earnings main source of income 4,456 146 2,043 468 1,799 

Housing rated poor 484 48 231 45 159 

Housing rated good+ 6,329 1,163 2,326 599 2,241 

Neighborhood rated poor 767 80 331 98 258 

Neighborhood rated good+ 6,105 1,154 2,289 549 2,112 

In central cities 3,813 593 1,374 376 1,469 

Nonmetro 1,323 282 435 95 510 

Suburbs 3,340 594 1,427 329 989 

Midwest 1,554 314 502 95 642 

Northeast 1,604 336 576 147 546 

South 2,964 470 1,138 309 1,049 

West 2,352 350 1,020 250 732 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 49

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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter Households (thousands) 6,209 1,054 2,413 535 2,207 

Number of children 5,242 0 5,242 0 0 

Number of persons 15,224 1,373 9,643 1,290 2,919 

Children/household 0.84 0.00 2.17 0.00 0.00

Persons/household 2.45 1.30 4.00 2.41 1.32

Unassisted with severe problems 6,209 1,054 2,413 535 2,207 

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 6,209 1,054 2,413 535 2,207 

Rent burden 50%+ of income 6,103 1,035 2,383 530 2,154 

Severely inadequate housing 343 67 117 20 139 

[Rent burden only] 5,346 906 2,088 454 1,898 

Any with nonsevere problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

[Rent burden only] — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —

(continued)
50 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2011

Total Elderly, No 

Children

Families With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 2,489 784 6 0 1,699 

Husband-wife family 1,200 141 805 253 0 

Female head 3,806 718 1,658 292 1,137 

Minority head 3,267 412 1,597 311 946 

AFDC/SSI income 1,178 192 569 149 269 

Social Security income 1,155 796 153 62 143 

Income below 50% poverty 2,518 363 1,088 211 857 

Income below poverty 5,362 809 2,260 452 1,841 

Income below 150% of poverty 6,167 1,040 2,410 529 2,188 

High school graduate 4,535 678 1,582 379 1,896 

Two+ years post high school 1,153 173 290 97 594 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 2,008 39 1,096 190 683 

 At least full time 686 3 506 68 109 

Earnings main source of income 2,993 70 1,387 290 1,247 

Housing rated poor 393 39 193 32 129 

Housing rated good+ 4,553 810 1,705 406 1,633 

Neighborhood rated poor 589 65 250 61 213 

Neighborhood rated good+ 4,410 816 1,693 365 1,536 

In central cities 2,831 428 1,033 261 1,109 

Nonmetro 1,005 214 336 72 383 

Suburbs 2,374 413 1,044 203 715 

Midwest 1,233 231 405 79 518 

Northeast 1,189 240 452 90 407 

South 2,126 347 804 199 775 

West 1,661 236 752 167 506 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 51

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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Non-Hispanic White (thousands) 8,051 8,931 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 3,436 4,097 42.7% 45.9%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,905 2,081 23.7% 23.3%

Unassisted with no problems 1,105 1,127 13.7% 12.6%

Assisted 1,606 1,625 19.9% 18.2%

Any with severe problems 3,938 4,593 48.9% 51.4%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 3,832 4,437 47.6% 49.7%

Severely inadequate housing 232 296 2.9% 3.3%

[Rent burden only] 3,453 4,007 42.9% 44.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,404 2,615 29.9% 29.3%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,223 2,425 27.6% 27.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 320 351 4.0% 3.9%

Crowded housing 104 81 1.3% 0.9%

[Rent burden only] 2,001 2,190 24.9% 24.5%

Any with no problems 1,708 1,724 21.2% 19.3%

Non-Hispanic Black (thousands) 4,493 4,606 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,640 1,820 36.5% 39.5%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 806 759 17.9% 16.5%

Unassisted with no problems 338 323 7.5% 7.0%

Assisted 1,710 1,704 38.1% 37.0%

Any with severe problems 2,359 2,514 52.5% 54.6%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 2,258 2,401 50.3% 52.1%

Severely inadequate housing 183 225 4.1% 4.9%

[Rent burden only] 2,020 2,072 45.0% 45.0%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,322 1,297 29.4% 28.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,202 1,121 26.8% 24.3%

Moderately inadequate housing 204 256 4.5% 5.6%

Crowded housing 77 102 1.7% 2.2%

[Rent burden only] 1,051 953 23.4% 20.7%

Any with no problems 812 795 18.1% 17.3%

(continued)
52 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Hispanic (thousands) 3,493 4,348 100.00% 100.00%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,582 1,971 45.3% 45.3%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 932 1,095 26.7% 25.2%

Unassisted with no problems 308 391 8.8% 9.0%

Assisted 672 892 19.2% 20.5%

Any with severe problems 1,841 2,294 52.7% 52.8%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,787 2,221 51.2% 51.1%

Severely inadequate housing 135 153 3.9% 3.5%

[Rent burden only] 1,578 1,951 45.2% 44.9%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,151 1,423 33.0% 32.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,016 1,254 29.1% 28.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 148 179 4.2% 4.1%

Crowded housing 256 338 7.3% 7.8%

[Rent burden only] 776 941 22.2% 21.6%

Any with no problems 501 631 14.3% 14.5%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 53

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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Northeast (thousands) 3,626 3,939 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,415 1,604 39.0% 40.7%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 678 715 18.7% 18.2%

Unassisted with no problems 421 372 11.6% 9.4%

Assisted 1,112 1,247 30.7% 31.7%

Any with severe problems 1,831 2,060 50.5% 52.3%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,739 1,933 48.0% 49.1%

Severely inadequate housing 184 232 5.1% 5.9%

[Rent burden only] 1,531 1,656 42.2% 42.0%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,003 1,112 27.7% 28.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 914 978 25.2% 24.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 146 220 4.0% 5.6%

Crowded housing 67 126 1.8% 3.2%

[Rent burden only] 793 789 21.9% 20.0%

Any with no problems 791 767 21.8% 19.5%

Midwest (thousands) 3,628 3,864 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,410 1,554 38.9% 40.2%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 811 927 22.4% 24.0%

Unassisted with no problems 422 421 11.6% 10.9%

Assisted 986 962 27.2% 24.9%

Any with severe problems 1,735 1,897 47.8% 49.1%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,672 1,827 46.1% 47.3%

Severely inadequate housing 127 129 3.5% 3.3%

[Rent burden only] 1,516 1,638 41.8% 42.4%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,131 1,214 31.2% 31.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,051 1,109 29.0% 28.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 136 146 3.7% 3.8%

Crowded housing 60 73 1.7% 1.9%

[Rent burden only] 951 1,003 26.2% 26.0%

Any with no problems 762 753 21.0% 19.5%

(continued)
54 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

South (thousands) 5,912 6,487 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,479 2,964 41.9% 45.7%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,416 1,432 24.0% 22.1%

Unassisted with no problems 678 713 11.5% 11.0%

Assisted 1,338 1,378 22.6% 21.2%

Any with severe problems 3,020 3,464 51.1% 53.4%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 2,944 3,348 49.8% 51.6%

Severely inadequate housing 145 221 2.5% 3.4%

[Rent burden only] 2,636 2,995 44.6% 46.2%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,813 1,907 30.7% 29.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,645 1,723 27.8% 26.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 287 286 4.9% 4.4%

Crowded housing 115 156 1.9% 2.4%

[Rent burden only] 1,427 1,486 24.1% 22.9%

Any with no problems 1,079 1,116 18.3% 17.2%

West (thousands) 3,951 4,977 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,791 2,352 45.3% 47.3%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 945 1,124 23.9% 22.6%

Unassisted with no problems 378 498 9.6% 10.0%

Assisted 838 1,003 21.2% 20.2%

Any with severe problems 2,088 2,681 52.8% 53.9%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 2,037 2,622 51.6% 52.7%

Severely inadequate housing 124 152 3.1% 3.1%

[Rent burden only] 1,843 2,339 46.6% 47.0%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,213 1,471 30.7% 29.6%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,081 1,318 27.4% 26.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 146 195 3.7% 3.9%

Crowded housing 221 215 5.6% 4.3%

[Rent burden only] 870 1,077 22.0% 21.6%

Any with no problems 650 825 16.5% 16.6%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 55

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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Central Cities (thousands) 7,915 8,804 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 3,344 3,813 42.2% 43.3%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,752 1,849 22.1% 21.0%

Unassisted with no problems 695 759 8.8% 8.6%

Assisted 2,125 2,383 26.8% 27.1%

Any with severe problems 4,206 4,692 53.1% 53.3%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 4,054 4,489 51.2% 51.0%

Severely inadequate housing 341 402 4.3% 4.6%

[Rent burden only] 3,584 3,902 45.3% 44.3%

Any with nonsevere problems only 2,363 2,631 29.9% 29.9%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,131 2,349 26.9% 26.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 423 396 5.3% 4.5%

Crowded housing 225 303 2.8% 3.4%

[Rent burden only] 1,749 1,973 22.1% 22.4%

Any with no problems 1,346 1,481 17.0% 16.8%

Suburbs (thousands) 6,119 7,105 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,632 3,340 43.0% 47.0%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,470 1,615 24.0% 22.7%

Unassisted with no problems 715 846 11.7% 11.9%

Assisted 1,303 1,305 21.3% 18.4%

Any with severe problems 3,093 3,793 50.5% 53.4%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 3,028 3,673 49.5% 51.7%

Severely inadequate housing 146 233 2.4% 3.3%

[Rent burden only] 2,783 3,327 45.5% 46.8%

Any with nonsevere problems only 1,890 2,076 30.9% 29.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,765 1,919 28.8% 27.0%

Moderately inadequate housing 154 236 2.5% 3.3%

Crowded housing 195 186 3.2% 2.6%

[Rent burden only] 1,568 1,663 25.6% 23.4%

Any with no problems 1,135 1,237 18.5% 17.4%

(continued)
56 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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, 2009 AND 2011

Number Percentage

2009 2011 2009 2011

Nonmetropolitan (thousands) 3,084 3,358 100.00% 100.00%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,119 1,323 36.3% 39.4%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 628 734 20.4% 21.9%

Unassisted with no problems 490 399 15.9% 11.9%

Assisted 847 903 27.5% 26.9%

Any with severe problems 1,376 1,617 44.6% 48.2%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 1,310 1,568 42.5% 46.7%

Severely inadequate housing 94 99 3.0% 2.9%

[Rent burden only] 1,160 1,399 37.6% 41.7%

Any with nonsevere problems only 906 997 29.4% 29.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 795 859 25.8% 25.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 138 215 4.5% 6.4%

Crowded housing 43 81 1.4% 2.4%

[Rent burden only] 725 718 23.5% 21.4%

Any with no problems 802 744 26.0% 22.2%

U.S. Total (thousands) 17,118 19,267 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 7,095 8,475 41.4% 44.0%

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 3,849 4,198 22.5% 21.8%

Unassisted with no problems 1,900 2,003 11.1% 10.4%

Assisted 4,274 4,591 25.0% 23.8%

Any with severe problems 8,675 10,102 50.7% 52.4%

Rent burden 50%+ of income 8,392 9,730 49.0% 50.5%

Severely inadequate housing 581 734 3.4% 3.8%

[Rent burden only] 7,527 8,628 44.0% 44.8%

Any with nonsevere problems only 5,159 5,704 30.1% 29.6%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,691 5,128 27.4% 26.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 715 846 4.2% 4.4%

Crowded housing 463 570 2.7% 3.0%

[Rent burden only] 4,041 4,354 23.6% 22.6%

Any with no problems 3,284 3,462 19.2% 18.0%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 57

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, 2009 AND 2011

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)

2011 10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+ Total

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 

2009

Extremely low-income 

(<30% HAMFI)

646 1,569 1,180 1,355 1,841 1,517 805 515 149 85 75 224 9,961

Very low-income 

(30–50%)

210 390 477 1,017 1,583 1,378 910 507 204 136 109 235 7,157

Low-income (50–80%) 175 250 337 733 1,403 1,664 1,086 605 252 171 153 338 7,168

Middle-income 

or higher (>80%)

222 272 266 573 1,261 1,928 1,802 1,559 977 581 455 1,215 11,110

Total occupied units 1,253 2,482 2,260 3,679 6,088 6,487 4,604 3,187 1,582 972 792 2,011 35,396

Vacant units for rent 80 69 121 350 821 858 624 469 270 152 127 407 4,348

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
58 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–13. RENTERS AND RENTAL UNITS AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE TO THEM,

BY RELATIVE INCOME, 1999 TO 2011

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Renter Households (thousands) 34,007 34,042 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396 38,867

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI) 8,513 8,739 9,077 9,729 9,243 9,961 11,774

Very low-income (30–50%) 6,243 6,315 6,581 6,342 6,697 7,157 7,492

Low-income (50–80%) 7,270 7,251 7,460 7,488 7,650 7,168 7,750

Middle-income or higher (>80%) 11,981 11,737 10,496 10,392 11,464 11,110 11,850

Affordable Units 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744 43,075

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI) 6,683 6,870 7,098 6,747 7,280 6,265 6,854

Very low-income (30–50%) 12,089 12,366 12,863 12,368 11,071 10,938 10,947

Low-income (50–80%) 14,222 13,634 13,518 14,044 15,063 16,228 17,995

Middle-income or higher (>80%) 4,023 4,328 4,099 4,765 5,916 6,313 7,279

Affordable and Available Units 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744 43,075

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI) 3,573 3,803 3,996 3,982 4,224 3,665 4,220

Very low-income (30–50%) 7,905 8,132 8,744 8,549 7,786 8,045 8,225

Low-income (50–80%) 11,841 11,665 12,396 12,865 13,196 14,004 15,361

Middle-income or higher (>80%) 13,700 13,597 12,441 12,528 14,123 14,029 15,270

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income. 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 59

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, 2009 AND 2011

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

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

2009

Total Households (thousands) 9,961 7,157 7,168 5,658 5,452 35,396

Unassisted with severe problems 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229

Unassisted with no problems 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211

Assisted 3,340 934 354 146 97 4,871

Average Monthly Income $717 $1,917 $3,006 $4,319 $8,459 $3,191

Unassisted with severe problems 764 1,820 2,860 3,945 8,723 1,416

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 1,072 2,005 3,017 4,338 8,498 2,993

Unassisted with no problems 362 1,947 3,031 4,344 8,459 4,972

Assisted 647 1,799 2,951 3,959 7,832 1,278

Average Gross Rent $646 $755 $805 $920 $1,166 $825

Unassisted with severe problems 766 1,061 1,495 2,178 2,155 958

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only 491 664 872 1,205 1,481 845

Unassisted with no problems 536 444 611 789 1,099 823

Assisted 514 647 719 774 1,119 574

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
60 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–15. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVING NONELDERLY 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,a BY DISABILITY TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Functional Limitations ADL/IADL Limitationsb

2011 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] 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

a (continued) Includes elderly-headed households. 

b ADL = Activities of Daily Living. IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 61

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TABLE A–15. HOUSING CONDITIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVING NONELDERLY 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES,a BY DISABILITY TYPE, 2009 AND 2011

Functional Limitations ADL/IADL Limitationsb

2009 Any 

Limitation Hearing Visual Cognitive Ambulatory Self-Care Independent Living

Households (thousands) 9,293 2,142 1,412 3,779 4,942 1,304 2,669

Renter households 3,886 779 633 1,817 2,000 509 1,136

Owner households 5,407 1,363 779 1,962 2,941 795 1,533

Renters (thousands) 3,886 779 633 1,817 2,000 509 1,136

Unassisted with severe problems 1,059 175 199 499 572 152 328

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

815 198 147 373 363 77 199

Unassisted with no problems 987 248 125 412 476 112 254

Assisted 1,025 159 162 533 590 169 355

Very Low-Income Renters 

(thousands)

2,584 434 401 1,280 1,399 369 835

Unassisted with severe problems 987 164 181 475 537 143 315

Unassisted with nonsevere 

problems only

457 101 59 221 206 32 121

Unassisted with no problems 178 27 13 80 101 37 66

Assisted 963 143 148 504 555 157 333

Any with severe problems 1,342 224 238 676 728 207 443

Rent burden>50% of income 1,292 218 230 648 710 197 428

Severely inadequate housing 115 19 25 66 57 25 34

[Rent burden only, adequate housing] 1,054 180 154 512 582 158 341

Any with nonsevere problems only 762 146 108 376 391 84 210

Rent burden 30–50% of income 687 121 93 336 365 75 188

Moderately inadequate housing 123 38 28 78 54 12 33

Crowded housing 45 7 12 21 14 2 12

[Rent burden only] 597 102 68 280 323 70 165

Any with no problems 479 63 55 229 280 78 183

a

 Includes elderly-headed households. 

b ADL = Activities of Daily Living. IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
62 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 63

APPENDIXB SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

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

EXHIBIT B–1. BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS IN 2011

Unassisted very 

low-income renters,

14.68 million

Other renters,

24.19 million

Worst case needs,

8.48 million

Renters with severely 

inadequate housing,

1.20 million

Renters with severe 

rent burden,

Note: Not to scale. 10.39 million

0.30

million

0.08

million

7.91

million

0.27

million

2.18

million

0.56

million

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
64 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

0

3

2

1

10 20 30 40 50 60

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data Rental units (millions)

EXHIBIT B–2. AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS OCCUPIED BY HIGHER INCOME RENTERS, 2011

70 80 90 100 110 120+

4

7

6

5

9

8

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

Unit affordability: percent of AMI needed to afford the highest rent in the category

0.79 1.78 1.28 1.47

2.13 1.95 1.07 0.59

0.36 0.70 0.82 0.58 0.43

0.23

0.37

0.44

0.95

1.57 1.57

1.12

0.18 0.58

0.26

0.28

0.60

1.43 1.75

1.28

0.88

0.23

0.29

0.35

0.56

1.17 1.99

1.75

1.65

1.11

0.78

0.48

1.49

EXHIBIT B–3. RENTAL STOCK OF BELOW-FMR UNITS, 2011

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 24,785 27,169 21,006 18,839 109.6 84.8 76.0

Northeast 4,993 5,255 4,186 3,596 105.2 83.8 72.0

Midwest 4,503 5,018 3,690 3,366 111.4 81.9 74.7

South 8,482 9,505 7,263 6,526 112.1 85.6 76.9

West 6,807 7,391 5,867 5,351 108.6 86.2 78.6

Cities 11,063 11,702 9,459 8,350 105.8 85.5 75.5

Suburbs 9,536 10,561 7,956 7,301 110.7 83.4 76.6

Nonmetropolitan areas 4,186 4,906 3,590 3,188 117.2 85.8 76.2

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 65

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 

APPENCDIX

FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 

HUD provides rental housing assistance through three key programs.

− Public housing. Provides affordable housing to 1.1 million families through 

units owned and managed by local public housing agencies. Families are 

required to pay 30 percent of their incomes for rent.

− Project-based assisted housing. Provides assistance to 1.3 million families 

living in privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the units, 

which are reserved for low-income families who are required to pay 30 percent 

of their incomes for rent.

− 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. These units are often more affordable than market-rate units, yet 

extremely low-income families that do not have additional rent subsidies 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, firsttime 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.
66 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 

− 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 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 67

APPENDIX

APPENDIX D. PREVIOUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON WORST CASE NEEDS

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).

These publications are available online at www.huduser.org.
68 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 69

APPENDIXE

DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

Using the American Housing Survey Data

This report uses data from the most recent available American Housing Survey, 

conducted in 2011. The AHS is sponsored by HUD, is conducted by the Census 

Bureau, and is the only detailed periodic national housing survey in the United 

States. It provides nationally representative data on a wide range of housing 

subjects, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, vacant homes, 

family composition, income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, 

equipment, fuel type, size of housing units, and recent moves. National data are 

collected every 2 years from a sample of about 53,000 housing units. The survey, 

which started in 1973, has sampled the same housing units since 1985; it also 

samples newly constructed units to ensure both continuity and timeliness of the 

data. Information from the Worst Case Needs reports has helped inform public 

policy decisions, including decisions on targeting existing resources, determining 

the need for additional resources, and the form housing assistance should take. 

To estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from AHS data accurately, 

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 AHS data are reweighted 

to 2010 census benchmarks.
70 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 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. 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 families. Households with a nonelderly householder and 

no children in which either (1) one or more people is related to the 

householder by birth, marriage, or adoption; or (2) one or more 

subfamilies reside there that have members related to each other 

by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Other nonfamilies. Households with a single nonelderly person 

living alone or 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 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. 

− Plumbing. Lacking piped hot water or a flush toilet or lacking 

both bathtub and shower, all for the exclusive use of the unit.

− Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold 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 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 71

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

Electrical. Having no electricity or having all 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.

− 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, or 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.

− Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously at 

least three times in the past 3 months for at least 3 hours 

each time.

− Heating. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters 

as the main source of heat (because these heaters may 

produce unsafe fumes and unhealthy levels of moisture).

− Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems 

associated with severe inadequacies.

− Kitchen. Lacking a sink, range, or refrigerator for the 

exclusive use of the unit.

Overcrowding. The condition of having more than one person 

per room in a residence. Overcrowding is counted as a moderate 

problem rather than a severe problem that constitutes a potential 

worst case need.

“Priority” problems. Problems qualifying for federal preference 

in admission to assisted housing programs between 1988 and 

1996, 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 lowincome renters with priority problems, the tables in Appendix A 

classify households with a combination of moderate problems 

and severe problems as having severe problems.

Income Measurement

Income sources. Income means gross income reported by 

AHS respondents for the 12 months preceding the interview. 

Beginning with the 2007 AHS, the previous combined question 

on interest, dividend, and rental income was split into separate

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

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 ages 17 years 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 ages 18 years or 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 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.40

Income cutoffs in association with AHS geography. To 

categorize households in relation to “local” income limits as 

accurately as possible within the limitations of the geography 

given on the AHS public use files, HUD compares household 

incomes with area income limits. Very low- and low-income 
72 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

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 (HUD-PD&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 used by HUD programs. 

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 lowincome 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 Tables 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 MSAs defined in 1983, based on the 1980 census.

Region. The four census regions are the Northeast, Midwest, 

South, and West. 

Mismatch of Supply and Demand for Affordable 

Rental Housing

Mismatch. The discrepancy between the number of rental units 

needed by renters of various income categories and the number 

provided by the market that are affordable at those income levels.

Affordability. Several federal rental programs define 

“affordable” rents as those requiring not more than 30 percent 

of an income cutoff defined in relation to HAMFI. Under the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit program, 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 

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 
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 73

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

based on a matrix of structure type, AHS climate code, and eight 

categories of gross rent. 

Three measures of affordability. Section 2 uses three 

measures to analyze the supply of the rental housing stock in 

relation to household incomes.

Categorizing rental units by affordability and households 

by income. For the analysis of mismatches between affordability 

and income in Section 2, we compared 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 were 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.
74 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 75

APPENDIXF

APPENDIX F. COMPARISON OF DATA SOURCES

COMPARISON OF DATA SOURCES

Overview

Three federal surveys collect data on occupancy and tenure: the American 

Community Survey (ACS), the American Housing Survey (AHS), and the Current 

Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS). Each of these surveys 

uses an estimate of total housing units from the same data source, meaning as a 

practical matter that all three surveys show nearly the same number of total housing 

units. Recent updates to estimates of total housing units for the period of 2001 to 

2009 (to reflect the 2010 decennial census), however, make calculations of annual 

changes in housing unit counts problematic when comparing surveys.

Moreover, each survey produces different estimates of occupied housing units (and 

their opposite, vacant units) and renter-occupied housing units (and their opposite, 

owner-occupied housing units). Housing researchers are well aware of this issue 

and the multiple factors that contribute to it, such as survey question design and 

sample design. Given that the ACS and the AHS produce different estimates of 

renter-occupied housing units, it stands to reason that subgroups within renteroccupied housing units, including those based on income and housing costs, will 

be different.

Housing Unit Counts

The Population Division of the Census Bureau produces independent quarterly 

estimates of total housing units that serve as control totals for housing units in each 

of the aforementioned surveys. The specific quarterly estimate used for each survey 

depends on which quarter best represents when the data collection for the survey 

was conducted. In some cases, a survey might use an estimate that represents a 

halfway point between quarters.

From 2000 through 2009, the quarterly estimates of total housing units were 

derived from the 2000 decennial census count of housing units and updated using 

building permit data, estimates of housing loss, and other administrative data. In 

other words, the count of total housing units from the 2000 decennial census was 

accepted as truth, and subsequent changes in the count for 2001 through 2009 

were estimated using alternative data sources and statistical modeling. The set of 

estimates produced for 2000 through 2009 based on the 2000 decennial census 

was called Vintage 2009.
76 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX F. COMPARISON OF DATA SOURCES

Beginning in 2010, the quarterly estimates of total housing units 

were based on the 2010 decennial census count of housing 

units. The subsequent estimate for 2011 was based on the 

2010 decennial census count of housing units and updated 

using building permit data, estimates of housing loss, and other 

administrative data. The 2010 decennial census was also used 

to revise the 2000-through-2009 estimates of total housing units. 

These estimates are referred to as Vintage 2010.

The 2010 decennial census revealed more housing units than 

the Census Bureau estimated in the years leading up to the 2010 

decennial census. The Vintage 2010 count of total housing units 

exceeded the Vintage 2009 estimate by 1.3 million units. The 

2009 AHS used the Vintage 2009 estimate. Exhibit F–1 shows the 

differences between the two vintages from 2000 through 2010. 

EXHIBIT F–1. ANNUAL HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES BASED ON CPS/HVS, 2009 AND 2010 VINTAGES (THOUSANDS)

Year Vintage 2009 Vintage 2010 Difference

2000 116,236 116,264 28

2001 117,831 117,994 163

2002 119,396 119,697 301

2003 121,023 121,466 443

2004 122,766 123,355 589

2005 124,600 125,363 763

2006 126,383 127,296 913

2007 128,017 129,064 1,047

2008 129,211 130,415 1,204

2009 129,944 131,269 1,325

2010 130,599 131,806 1,207

2011 N/A 132,291 N/A

CPS/HVS = Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of CPS/HVS data

The difference between vintages does not affect estimates of 

worst case needs in 2011, but it does affect estimates for previous 

years. The AHS data show an increase of 2.3 million housing 

units between 2009 and 2011. This increase is consistent with 

changes in the CPS/HVS data in Exhibit F–1, as is apparent by 

comparing the Vintage 2009 estimate for 2009 with the Vintage 

2010 estimate for 2011. More than one-half of this increase, 

however, is illusory. The actual increase in housing units is closer 

to 1 million, as can be seen by comparing the Vintage 2010 

estimates for 2009 and 2011. 

This rebenchmarking of AHS total housing units in 2010 poses 

challenges for comparing estimates of worst case needs for 

2009 and 2011. For this report, HUD chose not to update the 

2009 estimates, because the resulting revisions to worst case 

needs totals were minimal.

Vacancy and Tenure

It is well documented that the ACS, AHS, and CPS/HVS produce 

different estimates of vacancy and tenure.41 Exhibit F–2 shows 

the occupancy rates for each survey for 2009 and 2011 and the 

change between 2009 and 2011. The differences generally exhibit 

no pattern, other than that the ACS has the highest occupancy 

rate for both years. 

41 See http://www.census.gov/housing/ for an additional explanation.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 77

EXHIBIT F–2. OCCUPANCY RATES OF HOUSING UNITS FOR CPS/HVS, AHS, AND ACS DATASETS, 2009 AND 2011

2009 2011 Change 2009–11

CPS/HVS 85.5% 85.8% 0.3%

AHS 85.9% 86.8% 0.8%

ACS 87.4% 86.9% –0.5%

ACS = American Community Survey. AHS = American Housing Survey. CPS/HVS = Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey.

Exhibit F–3 shows the percentage of occupied housing units 

that were renter occupied in 2009 and 2011. All three surveys 

showed an increase in the renter-occupied housing units 

between 2009 and 2011. The ACS, however, showed a much 

higher renter occupancy rate for both 2009 and 2011 compared 

with the rates shown in the AHS or CPS/HVS.

APPENDIX F. COMPARISON OF DATA SOURCES

EXHIBIT F–3. PROPORTION OF RENTERS IN OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 

FOR CPS/HVS, AHS, AND ACS DATASETS, 2009 AND 2011

2009 2011 Change 2009–11

CPS/HVS 32.6% 33.9% 1.2%

AHS 31.7% 33.8% 2.1%

ACS 34.1% 35.4% 1.3%

ACS = American Community Survey. AHS = American Housing Survey. CPS/HVS = Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of CPS/HVS, ACS, and AHS data

The ACS’s higher occupancy rate and renter-occupied housing 

rate relative to the AHS resulted in about 2 million more rental 

housing units in the ACS than in the AHS in 2011. 

From this discrepancy, it can reasonably be expected that the 

ACS would show more households experiencing severe rent 

burdens than the AHS, simply because the ACS data show more 

renter households. 

The ACS-based estimate of the Joint Center for Housing Studies 

of Harvard University (JCHS) that 11.224 million renters had 

severe rent burdens in 2011 bears this difference out (JCHS, 

2013: Table A–3). This estimate is 8.0 percent more than HUD’s 

estimate of 10.391 million renters with severe burdens (Table 

A–1A). The JCHS estimate of 40.615 million renters, however, is 

also 4.5 percent more than the HUD estimate of 38.867 million 

renters (Table A–1A). Therefore, the differences in tenure-share 

estimates resulting from different data sources presumably 

account for more than one-half of the difference in severe rent 

burden estimates. Variations in the rent and income questions 

of the survey instruments, without doubt, have a significant role 

as well.
78 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 79

LITERATURE 

CITED

Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2007. 

Series H150/07, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. 

Washington, DC: Census Bureau. Also available at http://www.census.

gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf.

———. 2011. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. Series 

H150/09. Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. 

Washington, DC: Census Bureau. Also available at http://www.census.

gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdf

———. 2013. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011. “National 

Summary Report Tables: Table C-01-AH.” Available at http://www.

huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs.html (accessed December 20, 2012).

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2006. State of the 

Nation’s Housing: 2006. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joint Center 

for Housing Studies. Also available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/

jchs.harvard.edu/files/son2006.pdf.

———. 2013. State of the Nation’s Housing 2013. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University, Joint Center for Housing Studies. Also available at http://www.

jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/son2013_bw.pdf.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2010. “Minutes of Business Cycle 

Dating Committee.” Available at http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.

html (accessed November 17, 2010).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. Performance 

and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

———. 2009. “2009 Instrument Items Booklet.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/

datasets/ahs/English_Items_Booklet2009.pdf.

LITERATURE CITED
80 WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS

LITERATURE CITED

———. 2011. Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to 

Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development 

and Research. Also available at http://www.huduser.org/

portal/publications/progs_of_hud.html.

———. 2012a. “U.S. Housing Market Conditions: 3rd Quarter, 

2012.” Historical Tables, Exhibits 22 and 23. http://

www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/fall12/

USHMC_3q12_historical.pdf.

———. 2012b. “Estimating AHS-National Variances with 

Replicate Weights.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/

datasets/ahs/AHSN_Public_Use_Replicate_Weight_

abbreviated31OCT12.pdf.

———. 2013. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, 

Public Use File: 1997–2011. Version 2.1. http://www.

huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Community Planning and Development (HUDCPD). 2012. The 2012 Point-in-Time Estimates of 

Homelessness: Volume I of the 2012 Annual Homeless 

Assessment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community 

Planning and Development. Also available at https://

www.onecpd.info/resource/2753/2012-pit-estimates-ofhomelessness-volume-1-2012-ahar/.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Policy Development and Research (HUD-PD&R). 

2006. Programs of HUD, 2006: Major Mortgage, Grant, 

Assistance and Regulatory Programs. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. Also 

available at 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. Also available at http://www.

huduser.org/publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html.
WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS 81
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

August 2013