AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS:

A Report to Congress on the

Significant Need for Housing

Annual Compilation of a 

Worst Case Housing Needs Survey

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Affordable Housing Needs: 

A Report to Congress on the 

Significant Need for Housing 

Annual Compilation 

of a Worst Case Housing Needs Survey

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MAJOR FINDINGS ............................................. 1

The Extent of Worst Case Needs....................................................... 1

The Population with Worst Case Needs ............................................ 2

The Character of Worst Case Needs.................................................. 2

The Trend in Worst Case Needs ........................................................ 3

The Geography of Worst Case Needs................................................ 3

The Duration of Rent Burden ............................................................ 3

Availability of Affordable Rental Housing and Worst Case Needs .. 4

Housing Problems Not Counted in Worst Case Needs...................... 4

Comparative Estimates and Issues of Interpretation.......................... 5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 7

Terms and Sources............................................................................... 8

Income Categories Used in Housing Programs ................................. 8

CHAPTER 2. INCIDENCE OF WORST CASE NEEDS FOR HOUSING

ASSISTANCE–2003................................................................................... 11

Snapshot of Worst Case Needs in 2003 ............................................ 11

Basics about Worst Case Needs....................................................... 11

Change in Worst Case Needs Since 2001........................................ 13

Factors Affecting Worst Case Needs............................................... 15

Importance of Income........................................................................ 15

Effect of Income on Incidence of Worst Case Needs ...................... 16

Working Households with Worst Case Needs................................. 17

Demographic Factors Affecting Worst Case Needs........................ 18

Race and Ethnicity........................................................................... 18

Families with Children..................................................................... 19

Elderly Households.......................................................................... 19

Persons with Disabilities.................................................................. 20

Worst Case Needs by Region ............................................................ 20

Markets and Housing Mismatch ...................................................... 22

CHAPTER 3. RENT BURDEN: ROBUSTNESS OF ESTIMATES AND 

DURATION................................................................................................ 25

Introduction—the Survey of Income and Program Participation. 25

Robustness of Rent Burden Estimates ............................................. 26

Rent Burdens Among Different Income Groups ............................. 26

Rent Burden by Family Type........................................................... 28

—i— 
Severe Rent Burden by Race, Ethnicity and Region........................ 30

Duration of Rent Burden................................................................... 31

Two-Year Experience of Very-Low-Income Renters with Severe 

Rent Burden ..................................................................................... 32

Additional Severe Rent Burden in 2002 

Reasons for Change in Rent Burden Status: Movers versus Stayers36

.......................................... 34

Reasons for Change in Rent Burden................................................ 34

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 4. AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK......... 39

Why Housing Supply is An Issue...................................................... 39

Affordability, Availability and Adequacy ....................................... 39

Measures of Affordability and Availability ..................................... 40

Rental Stock by Income ................................................................... 41

Rental Stock by Location................................................................. 42

Sufficiency Relative to Fair Market Rent ........................................ 43

Trends in Rental Stock..................................................................... 44

Crowding ......................................................................................... 44

APPENDIX................................................................................................. 49

Works Cited........................................................................................ 49

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supplies of Affordable 

Housing ............................................................................................... 51

List of Tables ................................................................................... 51

Appendix B. Concepts and Methodology Used to Estimate Worst 

Case Needs .......................................................................................... 78

Appendix C. Worst Case Needs Methodology Compared to Recent 

Joint Center for Housing Studies Report......................................... 89

Part I – Methodology ....................................................................... 89

Part II – Data Sources (Survey Methodologies) .............................. 92

Appendix D. Issues of Interpretation .............................................. 96

Contributors ....................................................................................... 97

—ii— 
Executi v e Sum m ary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MAJOR FINDINGS 

In 1990, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee directed HUD to 

“resume the annual compilation of a worst case housing needs survey of the 

United States ... [to estimate] the number of families and individuals whose 

incomes fall 50 percent below an area’s median income, who either pay 

50 percent or more of their monthly income for rent, or who live in 

substandard housing.” 

Households with “worst case needs” are defined as unassisted renters with 

very low incomes (below 50 percent of area median income—AMI) who 

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

substandard housing. 

This report is the ninth in a series of Worst Case Needs reports to Congress. 

The report is organized into four basic sections. Chapter 1 provides an 

introduction, including a discussion of terms and sources. Chapter 2 

outlines the findings of worst case needs by various categories such as 

demographics and geography. Chapter 3 presents a new analysis using data 

from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation to 

compare estimates of severe rent burden and examine the duration of those 

rent burdens. Chapter 4 assesses the supply of affordable rental housing. 

Throughout this report, the following definitions of HUD income limits are 

used: 

• Low Income (LI). Not more than 80 percent of area median income. 

• Very Low Income (VLI). Not more than 50 percent of area median 

income. 

• Extremely Low Income (ELI). Not more than 30 percent of area 

median income. 

The Extent of Worst Case Needs 

Finding 1. In 2003, 5.18 million very-low-income households in the 

United States have worst case needs. Between 2001 and 2003, there was a 

small increase in the number of households with worst case needs, but this 

difference was not statistically significant. 

Finding 2. The proportion of American families that have these worst case 

needs is 4.89 percent. 

—1—
The Population with Worst Case Needs 

Finding 3. The great majority (77 percent) of families with worst case 

needs are at the bottom end of the income scale, qualifying as extremelylow-income households because their incomes are below 30 percent of area 

median income. 

Finding 4. Nearly two-thirds of extremely-low-income renter households 

have worst case needs. Over one-fifth of renter households with incomes 

between 30 and 50 percent of area median income have worst case needs, 

and fewer than 7 percent of renter households with incomes between 50 

and 80 percent of area median income either experience severe rent burdens 

or live in severely inadequate housing. 

Finding 5. More than one-third (36 percent) of households with worst case 

housing needs are families with children. 

Finding 6. A substantial proportion of households with worst case needs 

experience these problems despite being fully employed. Of families with 

children that have worst case housing needs, 41 percent have earnings 

consistent with full-time year-long work at low wages. One-third 

(33 percent) of extremely-low-income renter households with children have 

earnings consistent with full-time work. 

Finding 7. Elderly households with very low incomes are more likely than 

other family types with comparable incomes to have worst case needs. 

Elderly households make up 22 percent of the population with worst case 

needs. 

Finding 8. Persons with disabilities have a greater likelihood of having 

worst case housing needs than other family types with very low incomes. 

About ten percent of households with worst case needs are families with 

non-elderly members with disabilities. More than one-third (36.4 percent) 

of very-low-income renter households that have non-elderly family 

members with disabilities also have worst case needs. 

Finding 9. Of the 5.18 million households with worst case needs, 

2.76 million are white non-Hispanic households, 1.04 million are black 

non-Hispanic households, and 1.04 million are Hispanic households. 

The Character of Worst Case Needs 

Finding 10. Severe rent burden, not severely inadequate housing, is the 

only priority housing problem for most (91 percent) households with worst 

case needs. 

Finding 11. The share of households with worst case needs who live in 

severely inadequate housing declined from 4.6 percent in 2001 to 

3.9 percent in 2003. 

—2—
Executi v e Sum m ary 

The Trend in Worst Case Needs 

Finding 12. There were 5.20 million total households with worst case 

needs in 1995, 5.38 million in 1997, 4.86 million in 1999, 5.01 million in 

2001, and 5.18 million in 2003. 

Finding 13. The proportion of households with worst case needs has been 

about 5 percent in most years since 1991, the year of the first worst case 

needs report. As a proportion of all U.S. households, those with worst case 

needs were 4.73 percent, 4.76 percent, and 4.89 percent in 1999, 2001 and 

2003, respectively. 

Finding 14. The number of Hispanic households with worst case needs 

rose from 2001 to 2003 by about 250,000 households, roughly in parallel 

with overall dramatic growth of Hispanic very-low-income renters during 

those two years. There was no comparable increase in the number of nonHispanic white households with worst case needs. The number of nonHispanic black households with worst case needs decreased by 110,000. 

The Geography of Worst Case Needs 

Finding 15. All regions of the country share in worst case needs, with over 

30 percent of very-low-income renters in each region—the Northeast, 

Midwest, West and South—experiencing worst case needs. Very-lowincome renters in the West are less likely to receive housing assistance 

(24 percent), and more likely to experience worst case housing needs 

(38 percent). 

Finding 16. Central city, suburban, and rural areas of the country all have 

significant numbers of worst case needs. Over one-third of very-lowincome renters in both central cities and suburbs have worst case needs and 

in rural areas the proportion is approximately one-fourth. Very-low-income 

renters are less likely to receive housing assistance (24 percent) and more 

likely to experience worst case needs (36 percent) if they live in suburbs. 

The Duration of Rent Burden 

As discussed above, this report contains a section with a new analysis 

relying on data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program 

Participation. 

Finding 17. Among very-low-income renters who reported a severe rent 

burden in 2001, close to half (47.1 percent) continued to have a severe rent 

burden in 2002, 10.2 percent had a rent burden between 40 and 50 percent 

of income and 8.5 percent received housing assistance in the second year 

(and thus would not be counted in the definition of worst case needs). 

Of the remaining group, 12.7 percent had a rent burden between 30 and 

40 percent of income, 15.2 percent saw their rent burden drop below 

30 percent of income and 6.4 percent moved to owner-occupied housing 

—3—
(thus removing them from the population with worst case needs, which by 

definition only includes renters). 

The data also show a large number of very-low-income renters that did not 

have a severe rent burden in 2001 but did have such a burden in 2002. 

These include: 829,000 renters who had a rent burden of 40–50 percent of 

their income for rent in 2001; 808,000 who had previously received 

government housing assistance in 2001; and 1,365,000 who had either paid 

30–40 percent of income for rent (597,000) or less than 30 percent of 

income for rent (768,000) in 2001. 

Availability of Affordable Rental Housing and Worst Case 

Needs 

In addition to examining the experiences of renters, their incomes and the 

amounts they pay in rent, this report also looks at the availability of 

affordable rental housing and how these supply issues may affect worst 

case needs. For purposes of this section, “affordable units” are those rental 

units that households at various income levels (VLI and ELI) can afford 

based on 30 percent of their income. “Available units” are those units 

affordable to these income groups that either become vacant or are actually 

occupied by families at those income levels (that is, they are not occupied 

by higher income families). Units are considered “not available” to lower 

income families if they either are not affordable, or are affordable but are 

currently occupied by higher income families. 

Finding 18. There continues to be a shortage of affordable housing that is 

available to very-low-income and, more significantly, extremely-lowincome renters. In 2003, there were 78 rental units affordable to extremelylow-income renters for every 100 such households, but only 44 were 

available for these households (the remainder being occupied by higherincome households). 

Housing Problems Not Counted in Worst Case Needs 

The definition of worst case needs excludes many persons with serious 

housing needs. The homeless are omitted from estimates of worst case 

needs in this and earlier reports because the American Housing Survey 

counts only persons in housing units.1

 In addition, families experiencing 

overcrowding (defined as more than one person per room) are not counted 

as having worst case needs, in part because of a lack of clear evidence that 

crowding consistently poses a hardship. Despite these limitations, some 

findings on crowding are presented based on data from the American 

Housing Survey. 

1

 HUD is assessing the potential of supplementing future estimates of worst case needs with 

estimates of persons who experience homelessness from local Homeless Management 

Information Systems. 

—4—
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

—5—

Finding 19. Five percent of renter households experience crowding. This

level shows little change from previous reports.

Finding 20. Certain populations have more crowding than the national

average: 8 percent of renter households in the West and 44 percent of

renter households with five or more persons. Even among very-lowincome Hispanic households with no severe housing problems, 35 percent

are overcrowded.

Comparative Estimates and Issues of Interpretation

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) notes that the

Joint Center for Housing Studies recently issued a report, The State of the

Nation’s Housing: 2005 that found a substantial increase in the number and

incidence of low-income renter families with a severe housing cost burden

between 2000 and 2003. The Joint Center relied on the American

Community Survey (ACS) rather than the AHS. As explained in

Appendix C of this report, expanding the Joint Center/ACS analysis to

cover the years 2001–2003 also shows a significant increase in families

with a severe housing burden. The causes of the difference between this

estimate and the AHS-based estimates in this report are believed to include

differences in survey methodology between the ACS and the AHS.

However, not all the causal factors are known. The ACS estimates and

differences between the ACS and the AHS are discussed in more detail in

Appendix C.

There are complexities inherent in an analysis of this nature, as evidenced

by the above discussion. For example, further analysis is necessary to

understand the dynamics of the duration of severe rent burden, as in any

year a number of families pass into and out of a severely burdened

condition. In addition, the number of households experiencing worst case

needs may not be a direct measure of the need for housing assistance; other

means of assistance, such as those that help families increase their income

through education or job training, may provide more effective assistance.

Appendix D discusses issues to consider when interpreting the findings of

this report and developing policy responses to the need for affordable

housing.

Introduction 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Since 1991, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

has issued regular reports to Congress on “worst case needs” for housing 

assistance among the nation’s very-low-income renters. These reports 

developed from requests from Congressional Committees in the 1980s for 

information on housing needs. In 1990, the U.S. Senate Appropriations 

Committee directed HUD to “resume the annual compilation of a worst 

case housing needs survey of the United States ... [to estimate] the number 

of families and individuals whose incomes fall 50 percent below an area’s 

median income, who either pay 50 percent or more of their monthly income 

for rent, or who live in substandard housing.”2

 This report is the ninth in a 

series of Worst Case Needs reports to Congress.3 

To assess changes over time, HUD has used a consistent definition of 

“worst case needs” for affordable housing. Households with “worst case 

needs” are defined as unassisted renters with very low incomes (below 

50 percent of area median income) who pay more than half of their income 

for housing or live in severely substandard housing. 

The basic source of information for this report is the American Housing 

Survey (AHS), which is sponsored by HUD and conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. The AHS 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 

unit, and recent moves. National data are collected every two years from a 

sample of about 63,000 housing units. The survey, which started in 1973, 

has sampled the same housing units since 1985, while newly constructed 

units are also sampled to ensure both continuity and timeliness of the data. 

Information from the Worst Case Needs reports has helped inform public 

policy decisions, including decisions on targeting of existing resources, the 

need for additional resources, and the form such assistance should take. 

2

 Committee Report to accompany H.R. 5158, The VA-HUD Appropriations Act for 

FY 1991 (S. Rpt. 101-474). 

3

 HUD's previous reports to Congress are: Priority Problems and "Worst Case" Needs in 

1989 (June 1991, HUD-1314-PDR), The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s 

(December 1992, HUD-1387-PDR), Worst Case Needs for Housing Assistance in the United 

States in 1990 and 1991 (June 1994, HUD-1481-PDR), Rental Housing Assistance at a 

Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs (March 1996), Rental 

Housing Assistance – The Crisis Continues (April 1998); 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); and Trends in Worst Case Needs for 

Housing, 1978–1999 (December 2003). These publications are available online at 

http://www.huduser.org. 

—7—
HUD originally developed the definition of worst case needs in 

consultation with OMB and Congressional Committees. It was based on 

the federal preference rules that prioritized admissions for housing 

assistance programs in the 1980s and early 1990s. While Congress has 

repealed the requirement to use federal preferences in targeting admissions 

to housing assistance, HUD believes that the current definition of worst 

case needs retains several important advantages. These advantages include 

the comparability of the measurement over time and the continued viability 

of rent burden and physical inadequacy as indicators of housing need.4 

Terms and Sources 

This report uses data from 2003—the latest available from the American 

Housing Survey. 

For the first time, this report also includes a chapter analyzing data from the 

Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). 

These data are used to augment the report’s findings in order to verify the 

robustness of worst case needs estimates from the AHS and to estimate the 

duration of rent burden. 

Income Categories Used in Housing Programs 

Many HUD programs and other federal housing programs use income 

limits as eligibility criteria. HUD determines income limits on the basis of 

area median incomes for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan 

county. Area median incomes are adjusted for family size before income 

limits are determined.

5 

The income categories used in housing programs and in this report are as 

follows: 

• Low Income. Not more than 80 percent of area median income.

6 

Defined as low income by the United States Housing Act of 1937 

and used as an income limit for many rental and homeownership 

programs. 

4

 HUD’s previous reports to Congress are: Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 

1989 (June 1991); The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992); 

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 (March 2000); 

A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing 

Challenges (January 2001); Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999 

(December 2003). These reports are available at http://www.huduser.org. 

5 The HUD-adjusted Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) is based on the area median 

family income for all families, with percentage adjustments for households of different sizes 

as required by law. See Appendix B for further information. 

6

 Or, if lower, the national median family income. 

—8—
Introduction 

• Very Low Income. Not more than 50 percent of area median 

income. Defined as very low income by the United States Housing 

Act of 1937 and used as an income limit for many rental programs. 

(Note: the HOME program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit 

program also use 60 percent of median income as a threshold for 

some eligibility criteria). 

• Extremely Low Income. Not 

more than 30 percent of area Exhibit 1-1. HUD Income Limits for Families of 

median income. Defined as Four in Selected U.S. Cities, FY 2003 

extremely low income by HUD, 30% 50% 80% Median 

and used as an income limit for Median Median Median 

many rental programs as provided New Yorkb

 $18,850 $31,400 $50,250 $51,900 in the United States Housing Act of 

1937. Los Angeles $16,900 $28,200 $45,100 $50,300 

Chicago $22,600 $37,700 $56,500a

 $68,700 

Exhibit 1-1 presents Fiscal Year 2003 Houston $17,900 $29,800 $47,700 $59,100 

income limits for selected large Philadelphia $20,450 $34,100 $54,550 $68,200 

metropolitan areas. Phoenix $17,500 $29,150 $46,650 $58,300 

Exhibit 1-2 describes the primary forms Jacksonville $16,700 $27,800 $44,500 $54,900 

of federally subsidized housing.

7 Washington, DC $26,100 $43,500 $56,500a

 $84,800 

Denver $20,950 $34,950 $55,900 $68,000 

Atlanta $21,350 $35,600 $56,500a $68,800 

Seattle $23,350 $38,950 $56,500a

 $71,900 

a When the low-income threshold (80 percent of median income) for a locality exceeds the 

national U.S. median family income level ($56,500 for FY 2003), the national median level is 

used for purposes of HUD programs. 

b New York City’s median income limits were granted an “historical exception” due to the 

large decrease reported in 2003 median income (from $62,800 to $51,900) in part due to the 

use of 2000 Census data. To avoid disruption in HUD programs and to account for statistical 

reasons underlying this change, the median income limits for the low-income thresholds from 

2002 were retained. 

7 For further detail, see “Programs of HUD, 2005: Major Mortgage, Grant, Assistance and 

Regulatory Programs,” (HUD 2005.) 

http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/whatsnew/ProgramsHUD05.pdf 

—9—
Exhibit 1-2. Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs 

Federal rental assistance programs operate in three basic ways: 

• Public housing. These units are owned and managed by local public agencies. 

From 1937 to the mid-1980s, public housing was built to provide affordable 

housing for low-income families. Today, there are 1.1 million occupied units of

public housing. Public housing continues to provide affordable housing to the 

most diverse and lowest income population of all HUD programs. Families are 

generally required to pay 30 percent of their income for rent. 

• Project-based assisted housing. Through a variety of programs in the 1960s 

through the 1980s, the Federal government produced 1.3 million affordable 

rental units that are now supported by project-based Section 8 rental assistance 

contracts, which are reserved for low-income families who usually pay 30 

percent of their income for rent. 

• Tenant-based housing assistance. These programs provide rental assistance 

vouchers to 1.9 million households in affordable privately owned housing units 

selected by the household. In general, families are required to pay 30 percent of 

their income for rent, but are allowed to pay more if they choose. 

A number of other Federal housing programs produce affordable housing, typically with less 

costly subsidies. While these units are often more affordable than market-rate units, without 

additional rental subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely-low-income families would often 

have to pay well over 30 percent of their income for units in these programs. These 

programs include: 

• Low Income Housing Tax Credit. This tax credit program subsidizes the capital

costs of units that will have rents affordable to households with incomes at or 

below 60 percent of area median income. 

• HOME Investment Partnership (HOME). This is a formula grant to States and 

local governments that can be used to assist homeowners, first-time 

homebuyers, or renters. Between 1992 and early 2005, HOME produced 

211,000 affordable rental units. Qualifying rents must be affordable to 

households with incomes at or below 65 percent of area median income, or

below local FMRs, whichever is less. 

• Older rental subsidy programs. The Section 221(d)(3) below market interest 

rate (BMIR) program and the Section 236 program were active from the early 

1960s through the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing 

affordable by families with incomes above the public housing income limits. 

Over time, many projects or portions of projects developed through these 

programs became “project-based Section 8 assisted housing” as deep rental 

subsidies were attached to the units. There remain 300,000 units subsidized by 

these older programs that do not have deep rental subsidies. 

—10—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

CHAPTER 2. INCIDENCE OF WORST CASE

NEEDS FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE–2003

Snapshot of Worst Case Needs in 2003 

Basics about Worst Case Needs 

In 2003, 5.18 million households, comprising 11.4 million individuals, have 

worst case housing needs. These are renter households whose incomes are 

no greater than 50 percent of area median income (that is, “very low 

income” or VLI) and who do not receive 

housing assistance, and who have a severe Exhibit 2-1. Worst Case Needs Are 

housing problem known as a “priority” Severe Housing Problems Experienced by 

problem.8 Unassisted Very-Low-Income Renters, 2003 

HUD recognizes two types of priority 8,000 

problems: living in severely inadequate 

housing,9 or having severe cost burdens 

because housing costs exceed 50 percent 

of household income. In the case of 

renters, the latter means severe rent 

burdens.

10 

In Exhibit 2-1, households with worst case 

needs are shown by the dark areas in the 

first two columns—illustrating that severe 

thousands of households 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

problems do not count as worst case needs 0 

3,999 

1,176 

2,092 

436 

158 117 

4,494 4,699 

6,096 

4,135 

0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% if households have incomes greater than 

50 percent of area median income. By 

unassisted renters with no severe problem s

unassisted renters with severe problem s

unassisted renters with severe problem s (worst case needs) 

Incom e as percent of area m edian incom e 

definition, worst case needs result from 

the combination of very low income and 

severe problems among unassisted 

renters.11 Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. 

8

 Priority problems initially received the designation because they were conditions that 

qualified unassisted households for federal preference in admission to assisted housing 

programs between 1988 and 1996. See Appendix B for discussion of this and other terms. 

9

 The homeless are omitted from estimates of worst case needs in this and earlier reports 

because the American Housing Survey counts only persons in housing units. HUD is 

assessing the potential of supplementing future estimates of worst case needs with estimates 

of persons who experience homelessness from local Homeless Management Information 

Systems. 

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

plus tenant-paid utilities. 

11 Note that these estimates identify whether households receive rental assistance on the basis 

of survey responses, which are not entirely reliable for determining actual assistance (Shroder 

2002). 

—11—
Exhibit 2-2 shows how the two severe problems, represented by the smaller 

ovals, combine with very low income to constitute worst case housing 

Exhibit 2-2. Birds-Eye View 

of Worst Case Housing Needs in 2003 

Worst Case Needs, 

5.2 million 

0.3 million 4.7 million 

0.2 million 

Renters with

Severely

Inadequate 

Housing, 

1.0 million 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. 

Unassisted

Very-Low-Income 

Renters, 

11.4 million 

Renters with

Severe 

Rent Burden, 

6.5 million 

needs. The large oval represents the 11.4 million unassisted very-lowincome renters, of whom 6.2 million are free of either severe problem. The 

approximately 5.2 million households with worst case needs are 

represented by the intersection of the large oval with the smaller ovals. 

Although there are a total of 33.6 million renter households, the diagram 

does not show the 20.2 million renters who are outside the largest oval 

because they have incomes above the very-low-income threshold or receive 

some form of housing assistance. A significant number of these 

households—those represented by the overhanging portions of the small 

ovals—also face severe problems, especially severe rent burden. Among 

all renters, 7.3 million have one or both severe problems.

12 

Severe rent burdens. Very-low-income households who have worst case 

housing needs in 2003 reported incomes averaging $10,600 per year, or 

$883 per month. In comparison, their average gross rent (including 

utilities) is $669 monthly. The ratio of the average rent to average income 

suggests a typical rent burden of 76 percent, substantially above the 

50 percent rent-to-income ratio that qualifies as worst case need. Such rent 

12 Table A-1 in the appendix provides additional data about households with higher incomes 

or with “moderate problems,” which include rent-to-income ratios exceeding 30 percent, less 

severe physical inadequacies with units, and overcrowding. 

—12—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

burdens substantially limit the income that households have available to 

spend on other necessities such as adequate nutrition, medical care, and 

education. 

Among households with worst case needs, over three-fourths (77 percent) 

report extremely low incomes (that is, less than 30 percent of area median 

income). Rent burdens are even more severe for these poorer households 

than for all very-low-income renters with worst case needs. Extremelylow-income (ELI) renters have incomes averaging $8,080 annually or $673 

per month, and pay rents averaging $607. The ratio of these averages 

implies a typical rent-to-income ratio of 90 percent among extremely-lowincome renters with worst case needs. 

Severe rent burden continues to be the dominant cause of worst case needs, 

as severe rent burdens alone account for 91.4 percent 

of worst case households. Exhibit 2-3 illustrates this Exhibit 2-3. Severe Rent Burden 

relationship, as the entire chart represents the sum of Remains the Most Common Cause 

worst case needs in 2003. of Worst Case Needs Among 

Unassisted VLI Renters in 2003 

Severely inadequate housing. Physical housing 

problems have declined dramatically in past 

decades. In 1978, 9 percent of all very-low-income 

renters had severely inadequate housing, decreasing 

to 3 percent in 1999 (HUD 2003, A-8). The Both 

estimated incidence of severely inadequate housing 

rose to 4.6 percent of very-low-income renters in 

2001 but declined again to 3.9 percent in 2003. 

priority 

problem s 

3.5% 

Severely 

inadequate 

housing only Severe 

Among worst case households in 2003, 8.6 percent 

have severely inadequate housing. Only 5.1 percent 

are worst case households based on severely 

inadequate housing alone. Thus, 40 percent of 

unassisted very-low-income renters who are living 

in units with severe physical problems also face 

severe rent burdens, representing 3.5 percent of 

households with worst case needs. 

Change in Worst Case Needs Since 2001 

The number of households with worst case needs is

estimated to be 5.18 million households in 2003. Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. 

This is not significantly different from the estimate 

of 5.01 million households in 2001.13 The 2001 estimate is an insignificant 

change from the 4.86 million worst case households in 1999. 

13 These estimates were created using new weights based on 2000 Census data, and thus are 

not strictly comparable with earlier estimates. Worst case needs in 2001 previously were 

estimated as 5.07 million on the basis of 1990 weights. 

rent 

burden 

only 

91.4% 

5.1% 

—13—
households (1000) 

Exhibit 2-4. The Overall Incidence of Worst Case Needs


Is Stable, 1999–2003 


1999 a 2001 2003 

All households (million)b 102.80 105.44 105.87 

Renter households with worst 

case needs (million) b 4.86 c 5.01 5.18 

Worst case needs as percent of all 

households 4.73% 4.76% 4.89% 

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

shown are not statistically significant. 

a Estimates for 1999 are based on 1990 Census weights, while 2001 and 2003 

figures reflect 2000 weights.

b Households reporting negative or zero incomes are excluded from estimates 

of total households in this table as well as from the rent burden estimates that

account for most worst case needs. Such households represented 2.2 percent

of all households in 2003. 

c 4.856 million households represents the best estimate for 1999 based on 1999 

income limits. See HUD 2003 (page 2 and footnote 6). 

Exhibit 2-5. Overall Trend in the Number of 


Very-Low-Income Renters and Those with


Worst Case Needs, 1991–2003 


20,000 

14,903 15,658 

15,000 

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

10,000 

5,014 5,175 

5,000 

4,842 5,198 5,203 5,379 4,856 

0 

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 

VLI renters (1990 weights)

VLI renters (2000 weights) 

unassisted VLI renters with priority problems (1990 weights) 

unassisted VLI renters with priority problems (2000 weights) 

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

A primary cause of the increase in 

worst case needs since 2001 was an 

increase in the number of very-lowincome renters. The 14.90 million 

renters in 2001 increased to 

15.66 million in 2003. Because higherincome renters were moving rapidly 

into homeownership during this period, 

the growth in the number of very-lowincome renters also increased their 

proportion of all renters from 

44.2 percent in 2001 to 46.6 percent in 

2003. 

A countervailing factor was a 

0.5 percentage point decrease in the 

incidence of worst case needs among 

very-low-income renters. The 

incidence of worst case needs among 

very-low-income renters is 33.1 percent 

in 2003, down from 33.6 percent in 

2001. 

PD&R notes that the Joint Center for 

Housing Studies recently issued a 

report, The State of the Nation’s 

Housing: 2005 that found a substantial 

increase in the number and incidence of 

low-income renter families with a 

severe housing cost burden between 

2000 and 2003. The Joint Center relied 

on the American Community Survey 

(ACS) rather than the AHS. As 

explained in Appendix C of this report, 

conducting the Joint Center/ACS 

analysis for the years 2001–2003 also 

shows a significant increase in families 

with a severe housing burden. The 

causes of the difference between this 

estimate and the AHS-based estimates 

in this report are believed to include 

differences in survey methodology between the ACS and the AHS. 

However, not all the causal factors are known. The ACS estimates and 

differences between the ACS and the AHS are discussed in more detail in 

Appendix C. 

—14—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

Factors Affecting Worst Case Needs 

Among all U.S. households, the proportion that has worst case housing 

needs has been relatively stable for over a decade (HUD 2003). The 

incidence of worst case needs as a percentage of households overall 

increased slightly but insignificantly in relation to the record low level of 

4.73 percent observed in 1999. 

As a proportion of unassisted very-low-income renters, worst case needs 

climbed from 48.1 percent in 1991 to 51.0 percent in 1997, before declining 

to 46.0 percent in 1999 and 45.4 percent in 2003. Exhibit 2-5 shows that 

the 11.8 percent increase in very-low-income renters between 1991 and 

2003 was accompanied by a lesser 6.9 percent increase in very-low-income 

renters with worst case needs. 

The shortage of affordable rental Exhibit 2-6. Regional Variation in Worst Case Needs 

housing persists despite vacancy Mirrors Regional Vacancy Rates, 1999–2003 

rates that average nearly 1999 2001 2003 

10 percent during 2003. In 

comparison, vacancy rates Northeast 

remained below 8 percent during Rental vacancy rates 6.3% 5.3% 6.6% 

most of the 1990s. Vacancy rates Worst case needs as percent of

remain low in the Northeast and unassisted VLI renters 47% 50% 49% 

West regions where worst case Midwest 

needs are greatest. Exhibit 2-6 Rental vacancy rates 8.6% 9.7% 10.8% 

displays a weak negative Worst case needs as percent of

relationship between vacancy unassisted VLI renters 43% 44% 42% 

rates and worst case needs. South 

The association between regional Rental vacancy rates 10.3% 11.1% 12.5% 

vacancy rates and worst case Worst case needs as percent of

needs points to the importance of unassisted VLI renters 45% 46% 42% 

the market supply of rental West 

housing. Supply issues are Rental vacancy rates 6.2% 6.2% 7.7% 

covered in detail in Chapter 4. Worst case needs as percent of

Another regional factor that unassisted VLI renters 48% 50% 50% 

affects the incidence of worst Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey, and Census 

case needs is the distribution of (2004a). 

housing assistance across 

regions, which is discussed later in this chapter.

Importance of Income 

The incidence of worst case needs is substantially higher among extremelylow-income renters, who have incomes no greater than 30 percent of area 

median income, than among very-low-income renters. Because severe rent 

burden—not inadequate housing—is the predominant cause of worst case 

needs among very-low-income renters, the importance of income for 

households seeking affordable housing cannot be overstated. 

—15—
The pool of affordable rental units that are available in the market becomes 

progressively smaller as available income decreases. The 2001 American 

Housing Survey revealed 6.5 million renter households who had incomes 

below $10,000. Only 2.5 million rental units would have been affordable to 

these households based on 30 percent of a $10,000 income (Census Bureau 

2002). The following sections show that this shortage persists in 2003. 

There also were 2.2 million occupied units with “no cash rent” in 2001, 

suggesting that a significant number of households have special housing 

arrangements. Such arrangements may include housing provided both as 

non-wage compensation for work and as in-kind assistance from families or 

charities. It is likely that non-wage compensation in the form of workforce 

housing accounts for a significant proportion of no-cash-rent households, as 

the median income of these households was $17,947. 

Effect of Income on Incidence of Worst Case Needs 

Most worst case needs are experienced by extremely-low-income 

renters. By definition, worst case needs households must have very low 

income, but households with extremely low incomes are much more likely 

than very-low-income households overall to have worst case needs. In 

2003, 77 percent of worst case needs are experienced by extremely-lowincome renters, even though they account 

Exhibit 2-7. Incidence of Severe Housing for only 58 percent of households below 

Problems Among Unassisted Renters Varies the very-low-income threshold. The 

Greatly by Household Income Relative to extremely-low-income share of worst case 

Area Median Income, 2003 needs has remained above three-fourths for 

decades (HUD 2003, 23), and has 

80% remained at 77 percent since 1997. As 

65.7% Exhibit 2-7 shows, two-thirds 

60% (65.7 percent) of unassisted extremelylow-income renters have worst case needs 

40% in 2003. 

0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% 

Incom e as percent of Area Median Incom e 

22.1%

20% Fewer very-low-income and low- 6.7% 3.3% 2.5% income renters have worst case needs. 

0% Very-low-income renters are substantially 

less likely to have worst case needs than 

renters whose incomes fall below 

incidence of severe problem s 30 percent of area median income. Almost 

one-fifth (22.1 percent) of unassisted 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing 

Survey. renters with incomes from 30 to 50 percent 

of AMI have severe housing problems. 

Among low-income households, who have incomes from 50 percent 

through 80 percent of area median income, only 6.7 percent have the severe 

housing problems that would constitute worst case needs if their incomes 

placed them in the lower brackets. Among all unassisted renters, 

percent of unassisted renter s 

—16—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

21.5 percent have severe problems in 2003—reflecting the fact that almost 

half of all renters (46.6 percent) have incomes below 50 percent of area 

median. 

Housing assistance mitigates the effect of very low income. By 

definition, families with housing assistance do not have worst case needs. 

Housing assistance from various sources plays a substantial role in reducing 

worst case housing needs. Among the 6.21 million14 households who 

report receiving housing assistance in 2003, 69 percent have incomes below 

the very-low-income threshold. There are 2.99 million households with 

extremely low incomes, and another 1.27 million assisted households with 

incomes that are very low. Thus, nearly half of assisted households have 

extremely low incomes that would place them at a very substantial risk of 

experiencing worst case housing needs if they had no assistance. 

Working Households with Worst Case Needs 

Almost one-third (31 percent) of households with worst case needs 

presumptively would not be expected to be working because of age or 

disability. (These household types are discussed further below.) For 

households that do not face either of these presumed barriers to work, their 

work participation and housing problems are issues of substantial policy 

interest. Numerous federal and state policies and programs focus on 

helping citizens by promoting their long-term self-sufficiency and material 

progress while providing short-term assistance for daily needs. 

Extremely-low-income renters with significant work participation 

The AHS does not directly measure work participation. However, by using 

a proxy measure, HUD estimates that during 2003 about 1.64 million renter 

households with extremely low incomes (18 percent of extremely-lowincome renters) have earnings consistent with full-time employment.15 Of 

these working households, 690,000 (42 percent) have worst case housing 

needs. 

A more inclusive proxy for working households counts those whose 

earnings are their primary source of income.16 Based on this measure, the 

number of working extremely-low-income renters is 3.85 million in 2003. 

Of these, 2.04 million or 53 percent have a severe housing problem causing 

worst case needs. 

14 Note that the 6.21 million figure substantially exceeds the 4.4 million assisted in HUD 

rental programs. Some of the difference represents inaccurate respondent reporting, and 

inclusion of less deeply targeted programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. 

15 HUD’s proxy for full-time employment is household earned income of $10,300, equivalent 

to 40 hours per week for 50 weeks at the national minimum wage of $5.15. 

16 “Primary source of income” means their earnings represent 50 percent or more of 

household income. 

—17—
These statistics show that affordable housing is a substantial problem for 

the Nation’s extremely-low-income workforce. The picture is somewhat 

better for renters with incomes between 30 percent and 50 percent of area 

median income. Among these households, 78 percent are working under 

the full-time employment proxy—about the same as the 79 percent counted 

as working on the basis of their primary income source. Among 

households in this income group whose primary source of income is their 

wages, 16 percent, or 840,000, have worst case needs in 2003. 

Worst case needs among families with children and earnings 

Among households with children and worst case needs, the proportion who 

are working full time according to HUD’s proxy changed insignificantly 

from 40 percent in 1999 to 41 percent in 2003. 

About 1.17 million extremely-low-income renter households with children 

(33 percent) are working full time in 2003 as measured by the proxy. Of 

these working households, 440,000 have worst case housing needs. 

Demographic Factors Affecting Worst Case 

Needs 

Exhibit 2-8. Growth in Worst Case Needs Race and Ethnicity 

Among Hispanics Tracked Growth in Hispanic 

VLI Renters, 2001–2003	 Worst case needs for housing cut across lines of race 

and ethnicity. Minority status depends on definitions 

that are fluctuating as the nation’s population 15,0 00 

N on- N on- becomes more diverse.17 

H isp a n ic H isp a n ic H isp a n ic W h it e Bla ck Among very-low-income renters in 2003, 35.8 10,0 00 

7 ,604 7 ,702 percent of non-Hispanic whites have severe housing 

problems. This level exceeds the incidence of 

27.7 percent for non-Hispanic blacks and 31.7 

percent for Hispanics. (For further detail, see 

Appendix, Table A-9.) 

2001 2003 2001 2003 2 001 2003 The three major race and ethnic groups 

experienced contrasting trends between 2001 and 

Ver y- Lo w- In co m e Ren ter s Wo r st Case Need s 2003. Compared with 2001 levels, worst case needs 

in 2003 were unchanged for non-Hispanic whites, Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. 

decreased by 10 percent among non-Hispanic black 

households, which is slightly short of a statistically 

significant change, and increased significantly and dramatically by 31 

percent among Hispanic households. The differences point to interplay 

among several factors. 

17 For 2003, the American Housing Survey used revised Census Bureau categories of race 

and ethnicity, which are not directly comparable with the 2001 and earlier AHS. Survey 

respondents in 2003 were allowed to select more than one racial group, causing small but 

significant decreases in the size of the single-race categories. 

2 ,758 2 ,758 2 ,614 

1 ,150 1 ,040 789 1 ,035 

3 ,809 3 ,750 3 ,260 

0 

5 ,0 00 

Households (1000) 

—18—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

The rapid growth in worst case needs among Hispanic households reflects 

the overall growth in this population between 2001 and 2003. Exhibit 2-8 

illustrates that the number of Hispanic very-low-income renters increased 

by 25 percent during this period, accounting for most of the increase in 

worst case needs. The incidence of severe problems among those renters 

remained stable. 

Non-Hispanic black households, in contrast, have fewer worst case needs in 

2003 than in 2001. The decrease is caused by a reduction (although not 

statistically significant) in the incidence of severe problems among nonHispanic black very-low-income renters. Non-Hispanic whites experienced 

little change in the incidence of severe problems. 

Severely inadequate housing also varies by demographic group. Focusing 

again on very-low-income renters, only 3.2 percent of non-Hispanic whites 

experience severe physical problems with their units, compared with 

4.5 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 5.0 percent of Hispanics. Among 

very-low-income renters with severe problems, 11 percent of blacks and 

12 percent of Hispanics, but only 8 percent of whites live in severely 

inadequate housing. These differences reflect the influence of regional 

patterns, which are discussed below, on worst case housing needs. 

Families with Children 

Among the 38 million households with one or more children under 18 years 

of age in 2003, 6.38 million are renters with very low incomes. This 

represents an increase of 6.6 percent from the 2001 estimate. These verylow-income renters with children include 1.85 million households 

(29 percent) with worst case needs. Almost as many, 1.80 million families 

with children, receive housing assistance. 

More than one-third (36 percent) of households with worst case needs are 

families with children. 

Elderly Households 

Among the 5.18 million households with worst case housing needs in 2003, 

1.13 million are elderly households without children. In other words, about 

22 percent of worst case households are elderly households. Elderly 

households are those with either a head or spouse at least 62 years of age. 

There are 3.27 million elderly renters with very low incomes in 2003, so the 

incidence of worst case needs among elderly very-low-income renters is 

34.5 percent. Along with the 1.13 million elderly households with worst 

case needs are another 1.13 million elderly households who have housing 

assistance. 

—19—
Persons with Disabilities 

Among the 5.18 million households with worst case housing needs in 2003, 

0.51 million have disabilities using HUD’s proxy measure (see discussion 

in the Appendix). Based on this measure, 1.40 million very-low-income 

renter households have members with disabilities, which puts the incidence 

of worst case needs at 36.4 percent among this group.18 

Worst Case Needs by Region 

Exhibit 2-5 presented the association between regional variation of rental 

vacancy rates and prevalence of worst case needs. Other geographic factors 

also play a role. 

Housing assistance, which reduces the incidence of worst case needs, is 

distributed unevenly across the nation relative to the population most likely 

to need it. This occurs primarily because of differences in the historical 

allocation of Federal assistance that are sustained through successive 

Congressional appropriations. Public 

Exhibit 2-9. Worst Case Needs and Housing housing and subsidized private 

Assistance, by Region multifamily housing constitute about 

2001 2003 60 percent of HUD-assisted housing. 

These project-based programs represent 

Northeast geographically fixed investments. Little 

VLI renters (1000) 3,446 3,444 public housing has been constructed in 

Percent with housing assistance 33.8% 32.3% recent decades,

19 which makes it 

Percent with worst case needs 33.2% 33.3% proportionately scarcer in high-growth 

Midwest areas such as the West. 

VLI renters (1000) 3,005 3,327 Exhibit 2-9 shows that western states in 

Percent with housing assistance 30.8% 28.6% particular have a lower proportion of 

Percent with worst case needs 30.5% 30.3% very-low-income renters who receive 

South housing assistance and a higher 

VLI renters (1000) 4,860 5,294 proportion who have worst case needs. 

The incidence of worst case needs in 

Percent with housing assistance 26.0% 25.1% 2003 is nearly 5 percentage points Percent with worst case needs 32.9% 31.1% higher in the West than in the Northeast 

West region, which ranks second in incidence 

VLI renters (1000) 3,592 3,592 of worst case needs. The percentage of 

Percent with housing assistance 24.4% 24.1% very-low-income renters who report 

Percent with worst case needs 37.7% 38.2% housing assistance is lowest in the 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. West, only slightly below the fastgrowing South, but 8 percentage points 

18 See the next chapter for a test, using alternative data, of the quality of our AHS-based 

estimate of households with disabilities who had worst case needs. 

19 HUD has not provided new funding for public housing development since FY 1994. 

However, public housing authorities could use Modernization and HOPE VI funding flexibly 

for development. See http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/pdev.cfm (accessed April 2005). 

—20— 
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

lower than the Northeast. 

Worst case needs: metro status 

The location of very-low-income renters in terms of metropolitan status— 

central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas—also helps explain 

variation in housing assistance and worst case housing needs. 

As Exhibit 2-10 illustrates, of every six very-low-income renters, three live 

in central cities, two live in suburbs and one lives in a non-metropolitan 

area. In 2003, 31 percent of very-low-income renters in non-metropolitan 

areas receive housing assistance, compared with 28 percent in central cities 

and only 24 percent in suburban areas. Moreover, the incidence of worst 

case needs among very-low-income renters 

is substantially lower in rural areas, at Exhibit 2-10. Worst Case Needs in Central Cities, 24.5 percent, than the 33.9 percent in cities Suburbs, and Non-Metro Areas and the 36.1 percent in suburbs. 

2001 2003 

Another dimension of the greater need in 

suburban areas is revealed by the change Central Cities 

between 2001 and 2003. In central cities, VLI renters (1000) 7,287 7,446 

worst case needs did not change Percent with housing assistance 29.8% 28.1% 

significantly during this period, as the Percent with worst case needs 34.6% 33.9% 

number of very-low-income renters grew an 

insignificant 2 percent. In contrast, suburbs 

experienced 7 percent growth in the number 

of very-low-income renters. The number of 

suburban worst case needs increased from 

1.80 million in 2001 to 1.99 million in 2003. 

This growth in worst case needs occurred 

without a significant change in the incidence 

of needs among very-low-income renters. 

Suburbs 

VLI renters (1000) 5,147 5,506 

Percent with housing assistance 25.3% 24.3% 

Percent with worst case needs 34.9% 36.1% 

Non-Metropolitan Areas 

VLI renters (1000) 2,470 2,685 

Percent with housing assistance 30.8% 30.7% 

Percent with worst case needs 28.3% 24.5% 

The number of very-low-income renters Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. 

grew about 9 percent in non-metropolitan 

areas between 2001 and 2003. Despite this 

increase in non-metropolitan renters who are potentially vulnerable to worst 

case needs, the number of worst case needs held steady and the incidence of 

needs declined significantly. It is likely that very-low-income renters in 

non-metropolitan areas benefited from lower housing costs relative to urban 

and suburban areas. Still, about one-fourth (24.5 percent) of very-lowincome renters in non-metro areas have worst case needs. See Appendix 

Table A-11 for additional data on variations of need by metropolitan 

location. 

—21—
Occupied rental units (millions) 

Markets and Housing Mismatch 

The previous discussion highlighted the importance of income in relation to 

rents of units available in local markets. Affordable rental units frequently 

are occupied by higher income households. To illustrate, the columns of 

Exhibit 2-11 show the distribution of occupied rental units by the level of 

income (relative to area median) at which they are affordable.

20 Within 

each column are “income segments” that show the relative incomes of the 

households who live in those units. 

Examining the segments of 

Exhibit 2-11. Affordable Rental Units Frequently each column reveals that a 

Are Occupied by Higher Income Households, 2003 substantial number of units 

are unavailable to the 

8 income groups that would 

most benefit from their 7 

1.33 

1.63 

1.16 

1.68 

1.61 

0.82 

1.66 

2.07 

1.63 

0.84 

affordability because 

6 households with higher 

relative incomes occupy 5 

them. The upper income 

4 segments in the 0–30 

percent unit affordability 

3 category show that about 

3 million households with 

incomes above the 

2 

1 extremely-low-income 

threshold are living in units 0 

affordable to extremely- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+ 

Unit Affordability, low-income renters in 

denoted by top relative incom e (% AMI) in group 2003. Similarly, 5 million 

that would find the unit affordable households with incomes 

Middle Incom e (80- 120% AMI) above the very-low-income 

Low Incom e (50- 80%) threshold are living in units 

Very Low Incom e (30- 50%) affordable to very-low- Ex trem ely Low Incom e (0- 30%)

Vacant units for rent income renters. 

Comparing the height of 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. the third and fourth 

columns shows that there 

are twice as many units in the 40 percent affordability category 

0.57 0.82 0.73 0.45 0.30 

0.85 

1.49 1.20 

1.53 

1.66 

1.11 

0.60 

0.29 

0.35 0.59 

1.16 

0.59 

0.32 

0.32 

0.27 0.37 0.91 

0.51 

0.32 

0.30 0.32 

1.22 

0.57 0.43 0.31 

0.26 

20 Note that the column for each unit affordability category is identified by the income level, 

as percent of area median income, that is necessary to afford the highest-rent unit in the 

group. (Affordability means the rent does not exceed 30 percent of monthly family income.) 

In other words, not every household in an income segment will be able to afford every unit 

classified as affordable for their segment. For example, a household with income between 

20-29 percent of AMI would not find a unit “affordable” if it rented at 30 percent of 

30 percent (in other words, 9 percent) of AMI, which defines the most costly units affordable 

to any extremely-low-income renter. 

—22—
Incidence of Worst Case Need s 

(5.4 million) as in the 30 percent category (2.7 million). This discontinuity 

in the distribution of units—that is, the failure of the affordability categories 

to outline a smooth curve—is a reflection of the challenges the market faces 

in providing rental housing of adequate quality that is affordable to 

extremely-low-income renters. 

The exhibit also illustrates the paucity—less than 500,000—of vacant units 

available for rents that extremely-low-income households can afford. The 

supporting data for this chart are presented in Appendix Table A-12. 

The issue of housing mismatch and affordable housing supply is explored 

in greater detail in Chapter 4, as well as in the 2003 Worst Case Needs 

report (HUD 2003). 

—23—

Duration of Re nt Burd en 

CHAPTER 3. RENT BURDEN: ROBUSTNESS 

OF ESTIMATES AND DURATION 

Introduction—the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation 

This chapter presents a new analysis of rent burden not included in previous 

worst case needs reports.21 It uses rent and income data from the Census 

Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to compare 

with data used to estimate rent burden from the American Housing Survey 

(AHS), and to examine multiple year data of severe rent burden experiences 

of very-low-income 

persons. The SIPP is a 

highly regarded and useful 

set of data that can be 

compared to the AHS not 

only to confirm our 

estimates of worst case 

needs (WCNs), but also to 

examine the persistence of 

severe rent burden, an 

important component of 

worst case needs. 

Conducted for over 20 

years, the SIPP is an 

ongoing survey program. 

Each survey follows 

approximately 40,000 

households for three years. 

It is an important national 

source of data on income 

and participation in 

government programs. 

Exhibit 3-1. Comparative Advantages of AHS and SIPP 

for Assessing Rental Housing Needs 

 AHS SIPP 

Sample design Panel design tracks housing 

units every two years since 

1985. 

Panel design tracks 

individuals, every 4 months 

over several years. 

Sample size Larger sample allows more 

precise estimates. 

Sample about half the size. 

Weighting Based on housing units; 

probably slightly more accurate. 

Based on households; 

probably less accurate. 

Income data Asks about sources of income, 

but uses very general questions. 

However, the procedures are 

currently being changed. 

Asks more detailed questions 

about income sources and 

amounts. 

Rental assistance data Improved since 1997, but still 

known to have misreporting. 

Known to have misreporting. 

Housing conditions data Asks specifically about crowded 

and physically inadequate 

housing. 

Generally does not ask about 

housing conditions. 

Rent data Asks about rent and rent Asks about rent and total 

discounts; has detailed 

questions about utilities. Utilities 

data benchmarked to 

utilities. Uses less detailed 

questions than AHS. 

independent estimate. 

The aim of this chapter is two-fold. First, SIPP data can be used to calculate 

estimates of households with rent burdens, and these can be compared with 

AHS estimates of households with rent burdens that were presented in 

Chapter 2. 22 This report compares the two data sets to see whether they 

yield similar results for rent burden. In addition to comparing the total 

21 This chapter summarizes significant findings from a paper written by Scott Susin of the 

Census Bureau under contract to HUD. 

22 SIPP and AHS are not entirely comparable. In particular, SIPP does not observe housing 

quality, an important factor in estimating WCN. However, the SIPP and the AHS can both 

produce estimates of very-low-income families with severe rent burdens. 

—25—
number of households and persons with severe rent burdens, this chapter 

compares estimates from both the AHS and SIPP along important 

demographic breakdowns such as age, ethnicity, race, and disability. 

Second, the longitudinal nature of the SIPP allows the data to be used to 

track the persistence of rent burdens over time. This important aspect 

allows us to determine whether those with high rent burdens in one year 

continue to have high rent burdens the following year. 

Robustness of Rent Burden Estimates 

This section compares the incidence of severe rent burden among the 

nation’s renters as measured by the SIPP and the AHS.23 It compares 

numbers of households with moderate or severe rent burden, as well as 

severe rent burden among different income groups, among family types, 

and by race, ethnicity and geographic location. This comparison can help 

verify worst case needs estimates based on the AHS data in light of the fact 

that severe rent burdens alone account for 91 percent of worst case needs 

(Exhibit 2-3). 

Rent Burdens Among Different Income Groups 

SIPP finds comparable number of renters paying more than 

30 percent of income for rent 

Overall, the SIPP finds a fairly similar count of unassisted renter 

households paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent, as shown 

in the bottom rows of Exhibit 3-2. About 31 percent of all unassisted 

renters have some degree of rent burden. 

23 Both the SIPP and the AHS estimates are based on gross rent including utility costs. For 

the purposes of this report, the SIPP utility data were adjusted for consistency with the AHS. 

—26—
Estimates of moderate and severe 

rent burden based on the SIPP vary 

slightly from AHS estimates. Under 

the SIPP, the estimated share of 

households with severe rent burdens 

is two percentage points less than 

estimates of households with severe 

Duration of Re nt Burd en 

Exhibit 3-2. Number of Unassisted Renters 

 with Moderate and Severe Rent Burden, 2001 

Households with Rent Burdens 

(thousands) 

SIPP AHS Difference 

Severe rent burden 

(rent >50% income) 

Percent of all renters 

4,475 

12.9 

5,053 

15.0 

-578 

-2.1 

Moderate rent burden 

(rent 30-50% income) 

Percent of all renters 

6,340 

18.3 

5,544 

16.4 

+796 

1.9 

Total 

(rent >30% income) 

Percent of all renters 

10,815 

31.1 

10,597 

31.4 

+218 

0.3 

rent burdens from the AHS. This is 

somewhat offset by the SIPP’s 

higher estimated share of renters 

with a moderate rent burden (30-50 

percent of income) with 18 percent 

of renters having such a burden 

versus 16 percent in the AHS. 

Taken together, both data sets show 

about the same percentage of renter 

households (31 percent) have rent 

burdens greater than 30 percent. 

SIPP finds fewer very-low-income 

renters with severe rent burdens 

As stated, the SIPP shows a 

comparable number of unassisted 

renter households paying more than 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

Exhibit 3-3. Unassisted Very-Low-Income Renters 

With Severe Rent Burden, 2001 

30 percent of income for rent. Unassisted VLI households paying rents

However, the SIPP shows fewer over 50 percent of income (thousands) 

very-low-income renter households SIPP AHS Difference 

paying more than 50 percent of 

income for rent. As shown in ELI (<30% AMI) 2,959 3,692 -733 

Exhibit 3-3, the SIPP estimates VLI (31-50% AMI) 1,090 1,029 +61 

672,000 fewer such households 

nationwide paying more than half Total 4,049 4,721 -672 

their income for rent. Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

—27—
Exhibit 3-4. SIPP and AHS Confirm Similar Incidence of 

Percent of households 

Severe Rent Burdens by Income in 2001 

60% 

42.6% 

40% 36.3% 

20% 16.8% 16.5% 

1.8% 

0% 

2.1% 

SIPP AHS 

Data source 

Ex tremely low incom e

Very low incom e

Low incom e or greater 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

Extremely-low-income renters are much 

more likely to have severe rent burdens 

The SIPP confirms a key aspect of the 

worst case needs analysis. Households with 

extremely low incomes are much more 

likely to have severe rent burden than other 

income groups. As demonstrated by 

Exhibits 3-4 and 3-5, SIPP data show that 

more than one-third (36 percent) of 

extremely-low-income renter families have 

severe rent burdens. 

Nearly one-fifth (17 percent) of households 

in the 30 to 50 percent of median income 

range also had severe rent burden. Only 

2 percent of renter households above 

HUD’s very-low-income threshold 

(50 percent of median) have severe rent 

burdens. 

Exhibit 3-5. Likelihood of Severe Rent Burden By Income, 2001 

SIPP AHS 

Household Income Households Percent Households Percent 

(thousands) (thousands) 

ELI (0-30% AMI) 8,143 100 8,659 100 

With Severe Rent Burden 2,959 36 3,692 43 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 6,493 100 6,244 100 

With Severe Rent Burden 1,090 17 1,029 16 

LI and higher (50% AMI +) 20,039 100 18,824 100 

With Severe Rent Burden 425 2 332 2 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

Rent Burden by Family Type 

Analysis of SIPP data largely confirms most of the findings of worst case 

needs based on rent burdens of various family types. The family types 

considered include: elderly without children, families with children, “other 

families” (usually singles without children), non-elderly disabled, and 

“other households” (often unrelated individuals living in the same housing). 

—28—
Duration of Re nt Burd en 

SIPP confirms incidence of severe rent burden for most household 

types 

The incidence of severe rent burdens among these various family types, as 

reflected in the SIPP data, is very 

similar to the estimates of rent Exhibit 3-6. Incidence of Severe Rent Burden burden from the AHS, with a Among VLI Renters by Household Type, 2001 few noteworthy exceptions. 

Importantly, the incidence of SIPP AHS 

severe rent burdens was similar Household Type Households Percent Households Percent 

in the two data sets among very- (thousands) (thousands) 

low-income families with Elderly without children 3,276 3,407 

children, “other families” and With Severe Rent Burden 709 22 1,124 33 

“other households.” 

Families with children 6,062 5,984 

Exhibit 3-6 demonstrates that With Severe Rent Burden 1,520 25 1,701 28 

incidence estimated with the 

SIPP compared to the AHS Other families 549 825 

differs by no more than With Severe Rent Burden 159 29 223 27 

4 percentage points for these Nonelderly disabled 1,631 1,206 

household types, and not in a With Severe Rent Burden 397 24 389 32 

consistent direction. Estimates 

for the two remaining household Other households 3,119 3,479 

types—elderly without children With Severe Rent Burden 1,266 41 1,284 37 

and nonelderly disabled—vary Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

considerably more. 

SIPP Estimates Show Lower Likelihood of Severe Rent Burden For 

Elderly Families 

Compared with the AHS, the SIPP counts 672,000 fewer households with 

very low incomes and rent burdens above 50 percent. Exhibit 3-7 shows 

that most (415,000) of this difference is made up of elderly households 

without children. 

Exhibit 3-7. Elderly Households Account for Much 

of the Difference in Estimates of Severe Rent Burden, 2001 

VLI Renter Households SIPP AHS Difference 

Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 

(thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 

VLI Elderly without 

children 3,276 100 3,407 100 -131 

With Severe Rent Burden 709 22 1,124 33 -415 -11 

All VLI renters 14,636 100 14,903 100 -267 

With Severe Rent Burden 4,049 28 4,721 32 -672 -4 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

—29— 
In the SIPP, 22 percent of elderly very-low-income renter households had a 

severe rent burden versus 33 percent of such households in the AHS. At 

least some of this difference is likely due to the different survey methods 

employed in the SIPP versus the AHS. The SIPP employs a more rigorous 

set of survey questions to measure household income and is more likely to 

count sources of income often received by elderly persons than the AHS 

(for example, certain types of pensions). On the other hand, the SIPP does 

not employ as much survey rigor to the measurement of rent. 

Severe Rent Burden by Race, Ethnicity and Region 

When the presence of severe rent burdens among very-low-income renters 

are disaggregated by race and ethnicity as in Exhibit 3-8, the AHS counts 

399,000 more non-Hispanic whites and 201,000 non-Hispanic blacks with 

rent burdens of 50 percent or more. The SIPP estimates show very similar 

numbers of very-low-income Hispanic and other renter households with 

severe rent burden. 

Exhibit 3-8. Comparison of VLI Renters 

Who Have Severe Rent Burdens, By Race and Ethnicity, 2001 

SIPP AHS Difference 

VLI households with Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 

severe rent burden (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 

Non-Hispanic white 2,255 30 2,654 35 -399 -5 

Non-Hispanic black 852 24 1,053 28 -201 -4 

Hispanic 695 26 717 27 -22 -2 

Other 247 32 297 34 -50 -2 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

—30—
Duration of Re nt Burd en 

Exhibit 3-9 indicates that the AHS counts more very-low-income renter 

households in the Northeast and West than does the SIPP, although this 

might simply be due to the fact that income limits are aggregated to a 

different level of geography that is not the same in the two data sets. The 

SIPP counts more very-low-income renter households in the Midwest and 

South, a relatively modest additional 330,000. For all regions, the AHS 

counts more renter households with severe rent burden. 

Exhibit 3-9. Comparison of Regional Estimates of Severe Rent Burden, 2001 

SIPP AHS Difference 

Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 

(thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 

Northeast 3,131 100 3,446 100 -315 

With Severe Rent Burden 906 29 1,060 31 -154 -2 

Midwest 3,173 100 3,006 100 167 

With Severe Rent Burden 745 23 847 28 -102 -5 

South 4,990 100 4,860 100 130 

With Severe Rent Burden 1,306 26 1,534 32 -228 -5 

West 3,342 100 3,592 100 -250 

With Severe Rent Burden 1,093 33 1,280 36 -187 -3 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of SIPP and HUD-PD&R tabulations of AHS. 

Duration of Rent Burden 

This section uses data from the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) to shed further light on the duration of severe rent 

burdens. This section focuses on issues related to the duration of severe 

rent burden for individuals over time, and is included for the first time in 

the Worst Case Needs report. It draws heavily from research performed by 

Scott Susin of the Census Bureau under contract to HUD (Susin 2005). 

It should be noted that the originality of this analysis has a drawback. 

Without an established body of research literature to draw upon, efforts to 

highlight important findings should be approached with a certain level of 

caution.24 

24 While the type of analysis using the SIPP to examine rent burden duration and dynamics is 

new, there is additional existing research on income level fluctuations in the U.S. For 

instance, over the 48-month span between January 1996 to December 1999, 34 percent of the 

US population had incomes below the Federal poverty line for at least two months; only 

2 percent had subpoverty incomes over all 48 months. Of those who were poor in 1996 in 

terms of annual income, 65 percent were still poor in 1997, 56 percent were poor in 1998, 

and 51 percent were poor in 1999. Of those who were not poor in 1996, 3.5 percent were 

poor in 1999. About half of poverty spells (defined in terms of monthly income) end within 

—31—
In addition, as noted in the Susin paper and discussed below, there are 

important caveats to keep in mind with regard to the data source itself. 

Data used to analyze the duration of severe rent burden are only available 

from SIPP for a two-year time frame, so long-term analysis is not possible 

at this time. And, as discussed below, there are some findings from this 

initial duration analysis that appear to suggest the need for additional data 

and more extensive analysis than that presented here. 

For these reasons, this section presents a series of exhibits containing a fair 

amount of data. This will allow the reader to consider a variety of possible 

interpretations of the survey data, rather than pinpoint a few limited 

findings that have been selectively chosen from the wider array of 

significant possibilities. The reader should also note that this section 

focuses on persons (or in some exhibits, “householders”) rather than 

families or households. This is because there is no clear way to accurately 

assign or track household rent burden over time when an individual is not 

part of the same household in both years. 

Two-Year Experience of Very-Low-Income Renters with 

Severe Rent Burden 

Exhibit 3-10 looks at the change in rent burden between 2001 and 2002 of 

very-low-income persons who were renters in 2001. It also identifies 

whether very-low-income renters received housing assistance in either of 

those years or lived in owner-occupied housing units in the second year. 

This latter item is important to consider, as a very-low-income person who 

receives housing assistance or moves to owner-occupied housing is not 

considered to have worst case needs (WCN only includes unassisted 

renters). 

four months, and about four-fifths of month-to-month poverty spells end within one year 

(Iceland 2003). 

—32— 
Duration of Re nt Burd en 

Exhibit 3-10 presents some estimates that are of interest for considering the 

persistence of severe rent burdens. Close to half of very-low-income 

renters (47.1 percent) who had severe rent burdens in the 2001 continued to 

have a severe rent burden in 2002. Another 10.2 percent had rent burden 

between 40 to 50 percent of income in 2002, while 8.5 percent received 

housing assistance (and thus would not be counted as having worst case 

needs). These categories combined for about two-thirds (65.8 percent) of 

the total. 

Exhibit 3-10. Persistence of Rent Burdens of VLI Persons 


in Rental Housing during 2001, by Housing Problems in 2002 


(thousands and percent) 


 Rent Burden Status in 2001 Rent Burden Status in 2002 

(thousands) 

Rent 

Burden 

>50% 

Rent 

Burden 

40-50% 

Rent 

Burden 

30-40% 

Rent 

Burden 

< 30% Assisted Owner Total 

Rent Burden >50% income 3,421 740 924 1,102 616 466 7,268 

Rent Burden 40-50% 829 560 718 759 224 310 3,400 

Rent Burden 30-40% 597 591 1,194 1,364 178 258 4,182 

No Rent Burden (<30% inc.) 768 297 632 3,779 678 649 6,803 

Assisted 808 220 356 724 6,290 307 8,706 

Total 6,424 2,408 3,825 7,727 7,985 1,990 30,359 

(percent) 

Rent Burden >50% income 47.1 10.2 12.7 15.2 8.5 6.4 100.0 

Rent Burden 40-50% 24.4 16.5 21.1 22.3 6.6 9.1 100.0 

Rent Burden 30-40% 14.3 14.1 28.6 32.6 4.3 6.2 100.0 

No Rent Burden (<30% inc.) 11.3 4.4 9.3 55.6 10.0 9.5 100.0 

Assisted 9.3 2.5 4.1 8.3 72.3 3.5 100.0 

Total 21.2 7.9 12.6 25.4 26.3 6.6 100.0 

Source: Susin 2005. 

Note: Sample is restricted to very low income renters in 2001. 

Additional Note: The reader should note that Exhibit 3-10 may undercount the number of very-low-income renters who had 

a severe rent burden in 2002, because it only includes those renters who had incomes at that level in 2001. Additional 

persons whose incomes dropped from a higher level in 2001 are not included. This was done for consistency in both

years, but may result in a downward bias. 

Of the remaining group, 12.7 percent had rent burden between 30 to 

40 percent of income, 15.2 percent experienced a drop in rent burden below 

30 percent of income and 6.4 percent moved to owner-occupied housing. 

—33—
Additional Severe Rent Burden in 2002 

In addition to tracking the experience of persons with severe rent burden in 

2001, Exhibit 3-10 also presents data on very-low-income renters who did 

not have a severe rent burden in 2001, but did have such a burden in 2002. 

In effect, these data can provide further evidence on the dynamics of severe 

rent burden over the period from 2001 to 2002. 

The exhibit shows a large number of very-low-income renters that did not 

report a severe rent burden in 2001, but who did have such a burden in 

2002. Of those very-low-income renters that paid 40–50 percent of their 

income for rent in 2001, 829,000 became severely rent burdened in 2002. 

Of those very-low-income persons in 2001 who had a severe rent burden in 

2002, 808,000 moved to that status after they had previously received 

government housing assistance in 2001. An additional 1,365,000 renters 

became severely burdened in 2002 after either paying 30–40 percent of 

income for rent (597,000) or less than 30 percent of income for rent 

(768,000) in 2001. It must be noted that Exhibit 3-1 understates the number 

of cases with severe rent burden in 2002 because families that did not have 

very low incomes in 2001 are omitted from the analysis. 

Again, these data should be considered carefully as they are highly 

dependent on accurate reporting in both years of the survey. A mistake or 

misreporting of data in either year for some survey respondents will 

introduce possible bias and one should proceed with caution when 

interpreting the data (Susin, 2005). In addition, attrition of families over 

time may introduce bias if the families that remain in the survey are more 

stable. 

Reasons for Change in Rent Burden 

Further analysis of the outcomes for very-low-income renters with severe 

rent burdens in 2001 is shown in Exhibit 3-11. For those persons who saw 

a decline in their rent burden below 50 percent of income in 2002, the 

exhibit provides several categories of possible reasons for this decline: their 

gross rent fell, their income rose, or both. 

The exhibit shows that the most common reason for a drop from a severe 

rent burden to a rent burden of less than 50 percent of income was an 

increase in reported income (1.518 million persons). The next most 

common reason was a decrease in reported rent (1.021 million persons). 

For 140,000 persons, both an increase in reported income and a decrease in 

reported rent were required (as neither event by itself would have been 

sufficient to include them in this group). A smaller group of 86,000 

persons reported either zero or negative income in 2002. 

—34—
Duration of Re nt Burd en 

It may be somewhat surprising that a decline in reported rent accounted for 

such a large percentage of those who moved out of severe rent burden. In 

addition, while some outside research has found a large impact of decreased 

rent on rent burden dynamics (Hill 2003), as discussed below there may be 

a need for additional research on this issue before reaching firm conclusions 

on its significance. 

Exhibit 3-11. Reason for Change in Severe Rent Burden Status 

by Age and Disability Status 

Age and Disability

Status in 2001 

Rent Burden Fell Below 50% in 2002 

due to Change in Rent or Income Other Outcome in 2002 

(thousands) 

Gross 

Rent Fell, 

Alone 

Income 

Rose, 

Alone 

Income 

rose and 

rent fell 

Income 

Fell to 

Zero or 

Negative 

Rent 

Burden 

Stayed 

>50% 

Became 

Assisted 

Became 

Owner Total 

Child 317 427 54 21 1,107 280 141 2,345 

Elderly 118 91 0 0 426 38 46 718 

Disability (self-rpt.) 38 68 11 4 272 33 22 448 

Other 548 932 76 62 1,617 265 257 3,756 

Total 1,021 1,518 140 86 3,421 616 466 7,268 

(percent) 

Child 13.5 18.2 2.3 0.9 47.2 11.9 6.0 100.0 

Elderly 16.4 12.6 0.0 0.0 59.3 5.3 6.4 100.0 

Disability (self-rpt.) 8.5 15.2 2.4 0.8 60.6 7.5 5.0 100.0 

Other 14.6 24.8 2.0 1.7 43.0 7.0 6.9 100.0 

Total 14.0 20.9 1.9 1.2 47.0 8.5 6.4 100.0 

Source: Susin 2005. 

Note: Sample is restricted to very low income renters with rent burdens > 50% in 2001.

—35—
Reasons for Change in Rent Burden Status: Movers versus 

Stayers 

Exhibit 3-12 examines very-low-income renters with a severe rent burden 

in 2001, their experiences in 2002, and whether or not they stayed in the 

same housing unit. 

Those who had a severe rent burden in 2001 and stayed in the same housing 

unit were much more likely to continue to remain unassisted and have a 

severe rent burden. Of the stayers, 52.6 percent continued to have a severe 

rent burden versus only 33 percent of movers (who were a much smaller 

group). 

A larger percentage of movers either became assisted (10.5 percent versus 

6.0 percent of stayers) or moved to owner-occupied housing (20.9 percent 

versus only 2.2 percent of stayers). It is this large difference in the latter 

category that accounts for most of the overall difference, rather than a move 

to a unit with lower rent. 

Exhibit 3-12. Persistence of Rent Burdens by Mobility Status - VLI Householders With 

Rent Burdens > 50% in 2001 

Mobility, 2001-2002a Rent Burdens in 2002 

Rent Rent Rent 

Burden Burden Burden No Rent 

(thousands) > 50% 40-50% 30-40% Burden Assisted Owner Total 

Stayed in Same Housing Unit 1,449 322 361 397 164 60 2,754 

Moved 297 65 107 148 95 188 899 

Total 1,746 387 468 546 258 248 3,653 

(percent) 

Stayed in Same Housing Unit 52.6 11.7 13.1 14.4 6.0 2.2 100.0 

Moved 33.0 7.2 11.9 16.5 10.5 20.9 100.0 

Total 47.8 10.6 12.8 14.9 7.1 6.8 100.0 

Source: Susin 2005. 

Note: Sample is restricted to very-low-income householders with rent burdens > 50% in 2001. 

a

 Comparing 12th month of SIPP panel to 24th month. 

It is important to keep in mind that those living in owner-occupied housing 

are by definition not included in worst case needs estimates and this 

exclusion by itself does not address their housing costs. Note also that the 

unit of analysis for this exhibit is “householders” rather than persons, in an 

attempt to more closely track the experience of a family.

25 This helps 

25 Because the SIPP is designed to track individuals rather than households over time, it is 

difficult to make comparisons with AHS-based estimates, many of which are at the 

household level. It is possible, using the SIPP, to track “householders,” defined as 

individuals whose names are on a lease or mortgage. This allows for a closer approximation 

of household-level estimates produced using the AHS. 

—36— 
Duration of Re nt Burd en 

provide an estimate that is closer to the AHS-based estimates using 

households as the unit of analysis. 

Exhibit 3-13 provides additional detail for very-low-income renters that had 

a severe rent burden in 2001 and whose rent burden dropped below 

50 percent of income in 2002. The exhibit compares movers versus stayers 

for three categories: those whose rent burden dropped as a result of gross 

rent falling; and those whose 

burden declined as a result of Exhibit 3-13. Reason for Change 

rising income and for whom in Severe Rent Burden Status—VLI Persons 

either 1) the number of adults With Rent Burdens > 50% in 2001 and < 50% in 2002 

present rose; or 2) the number of 

Gross Rent adults present was the same or (including fewer. The latter categories allow utilities) 

examination of whether rising Decreased Income Increased Total 

income was a result of additional Adults 

family members being present, or Adults Same or 

Rose Fewer

was a result of an increase in 

income for individuals. Movers 336 10 178 524 

Stayers 685 70 1,261 2,016 Exhibit 3-13 also shows that well 

over half of those whose rent Total 1,021 80 1,439 2,539 

burden declined as a result of Source: Susin 2005. 

Note: Sample is restricted to very low income renters with rent burdens > 50% in 2001. reduced rent stayed in the same 

Estimates may not sum to totals because of rounding. unit for both years, while there 

were far fewer persons in this category who had moved. Of the 

1.021 million persons reporting a reduced rent that accounted for their 

move out of a severe rent burden status, 685,000 (67 percent) stayed in the 

same unit in 2002. Only 336,000 persons in this category (33 percent) 

moved to a different rental unit in 2002. This is a somewhat surprising 

result—that 67 percent of those renters who reported a reduced rent stayed 

in the same housing unit. There are some possible valid explanations for 

why gross rent might decline from one year to the next, including a possible 

decline in utility costs because the SIPP’s gross rent estimate includes 

utilities (for example, a warmer winter in the second year). However, the 

magnitude of the difference suggests it may be more likely due to 

misreporting reporting errors in either of the two years could significantly 

impact the results. Thus, more data and analysis are needed to further 

understand the reasons for changes in severe rent burden status. 

Conclusion 

The findings above indicate the need for additional research using the 

Census Bureau’s SIPP database. The exhibits highlight the dynamic nature 

of the data and present interesting issues. However, given the preliminary 

nature of the analysis and findings, it would be problematic to reach firm 

conclusions based on the data available at this time. The innovative nature 

of this initial duration analysis seems to hold promise for shedding further 

—37—
light on the nature and dynamics of serious housing affordability issues in 

the United States. Additional future research should be encouraged to 

better understand the nature of these issues. 

—38—
Availability of 

Affordab le Housing St ock 

CHAPTER 4. AVAILABILITY OF

AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK

Why Housing Supply is An Issue 

Most of the analysis in this report focuses on the demand side of the 

housing markets: the distribution of households by income and 

demographic characteristics, what they can afford to pay, and what they do 

pay as a proportion of their incomes. This chapter examines the question of 

housing supply. The chapter’s most important conclusions are summarized 

in the sidebar. Key Findings about Housing Supply 

Affordability, Availability and Adequacy • The number of rental housing units is sufficient to 

provide affordable housing to households with 

This chapter uses three concepts to assess the rental incomes above 40 percent of area median income 

housing stock, Affordability, Availability and (AMI). 

Adequacy. • There are fewer affordable units actually available to 

households with the lowest incomes, and a 

• Affordability measures the extent to which there substantial proportion of available units are physically 

are enough rental housing units of different costs inadequate. 

to provide each household with a unit it can • Nonmetropolitan areas have more available rental 

afford (based on the 30 percent of income units than cities or suburbs. 

standard). Affordability is the broadest measure • There has been very little change in the ratio of 

of housing stock sufficiency, addressing whether affordable, available rental housing units to the 

there are sufficient housing units if allocated number of households over the past two decades. 

• Occupancy by higher-income households restricts the solely on the basis of cost. The affordable stock supply of units renting for less than the Fair Market 

includes both vacant and occupied units. Rent to only about 80 percent of households who can 

• Availability measures the extent to which afford only such units. 

affordable rental housing units are available to • Larger households are much more likely than smaller 

households to be crowded. households within a particular income range. 

Some households choose to spend less than 

30 percent of their incomes on rent, occupying housing that is

affordable to households of lower income. These units are thus not 

available to the lower-income households.

26 A unit is available at a

given level of income if it is affordable at that level and either 

1) occupied by a household with that income or less or 2) vacant. 

26 The availability measure also removes units from consideration if they have artificially low 

rents because they are occupied as a benefit of employment (for example, by caretakers) or 

because they are owned by relatives or friends of the occupants. The 2003 AHS data indicate 

that 2.2 million renter households (6.6 percent) occupied their units while paying no rent. 

The AHS does not provide estimates of the number of households paying a positive but 

below-market rent because of employment or other reasons. 

—39—
• Adequacy extends the concept of availability by considering whether 

sufficient rental units are physically adequate as well as available and 

affordable.

27 

Measures of Affordability and Availability 

Exhibit 4-1 describes the U.S. rental housing stock in 2003 using data from 

the AHS.28 For purposes of this analysis, income and affordability are 

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

The point at which the Affordability Exhibit 4-1. Three Measures Characterize the Sufficiency line crosses 100 is where there is an of the U.S. Rental Housing Stock, 2003 

affordable rental unit for every 

160 household. This occurs at 40 percent 

of AMI, meaning the number of 

140 

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

Income as percent of Area Median Income

rental housing units is sufficient to 

120 provide affordable housing to 

households with incomes above 

100 

40 percent of area median income. 

80 Affordable units peak at an income 

level of 75 percent of AMI. Beyond 

60 

this, more households than housing 

40 units are being added. The 

downward slope beyond 75 percent 

20 

of AMI represents a reduction in 

0 housing need, because the 

households with incomes greater 

than each successive threshold are 

Affordable more and more likely to spend less 

Affordable & Available than 30 percent of their incomes on Affordable, Available, & Adequate 

housing. 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. The Affordable and Available line 

shows a different story. Its position 

below and to the right of the Affordable line indicates that availability is a 

substantial additional constraint. For example, about 78 percent of 

27 The AHS rates housing units using a three-level measure: adequate, moderately 

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

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development 2004). 

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

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

stock with the entire rental population. Although this chapter presents more geographically 

restricted measures below, they are still too large to fairly represent housing demand and 

supply as owners and renters experience them, as these are local phenomena. Thus, these 

results should be viewed with some caution as national or regional indicators based on 

underlying local housing markets. More severe shortages or generous surpluses can occur in 

specific housing markets, despite these national and regional findings. For an overview of 

issues related to local markets, see Khadduri, Burnett and Rodda (2003). 

housing units per 100 households 

—40—
Availability of 

Affordab le Housing St ock 

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

affordable units if such units somehow could be perfectly allocated, but in 

reality only 44 percent could actually find a unit available for their 

occupancy. A considerable proportion of even the most affordable housing 

stock is occupied by households who could afford to spend more. Thus, 

many units that are affordable to lower-income renters are not available to 

them. The affordable stock is nominally sufficient to house every 

household above 40 percent of AMI, yet the available stock does not match 

the number of renters until household incomes reach 65 percent of AMI.29 

Rental Stock by Income 

As suggested by Exhibit 2-11, there are fewer affordable units available to 

households with the lowest incomes. Exhibit 4-2 illustrates this by 

presenting the housing stock measures for the standard income groups used 

in this report. There is a mismatch between the number of extremely-lowincome renters and the number of 

affordable units available to them. There Exhibit 4-2. Rental Housing Stock by Income, 2003 

are only 78.2 affordable units for every 

100 extremely-low-income households. Housing Units per 100 Households 

The ratio of available units is about half as Affordable, 

Affordable Available, great, at 44 units per 100 households, and and and

even among these available units, only Income Affordable Available Adequate 

three-fourths are physically adequate.

30 

ELI (<30% AMI) 78.20 44.03 33.88 

While there are enough units to house all VLI (30-50% AMI) 127.48 81.37 60.52 

households at the very low income level, LI (50-80% AMI) 144.81 108.73 83.43 

there are only about eight available units Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. 

for every ten very-low-income households, 

and only six of them are physically

adequate. At the higher levels of income,

the available rental stock is sufficient to house all renters.

29 This statement interprets the horizontal difference between the Affordable and the 

Affordable/Available line, which can be understood as showing the income levels of families 

who are “displaced” by higher income households. The preceding example reflects the 

vertical difference between the lines, which represents the difference between nominal and 

available supply of affordable units for households of a given income level. 

30 Research based on the American Community Survey indicates that 10 percent of vacant 

units with gross rents of $400 or less have been empty for at least two years, suggesting they 

are heading toward abandonment (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2005, 23). 

—41—
Housing units per 100 households 

Exhibit 4-3. Nonmetropolitan Areas Have 

More Available Rental Units than Cities and Suburbs 

120 

100

80

60

40

20

0 

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

Incom e as percent of Area Median Incom e 

City Suburb Nonm etro 

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

Exhibit 4-4. Rental Housing Stock by 

Metropolitan Status and Income Class, 2003 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Affordable, 

Affordable Available, 

and and 

 Affordable Available Adequate 

Rental Stock by Location 

Nonmetropolitan areas tend to have the 

best match of rental housing stock to 

households, as is illustrated by Exhibit 

4-3. The available stock is larger in 

nonmetropolitan areas at all levels of 

income, reaching the one-to-one ratio 

at the very-low-income limit, 

50 percent of AMI. 

Central cities have fewer units 

affordable to extremely-low-income 

households than suburbs, but slightly 

more available units. One factor 

affecting the mismatch in suburbs is the 

significant increase in very-low-income 

renter population within suburbs during 

the 2001–2003 period (Exhibit 2-10). 

The same patterns between cities, 

suburbs and nonmetropolitan areas are 

seen using the Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate measures, as illustrated 

with the standard income categories in 

Exhibit 4-4. 

Central Cities 

ELI (<30% AMI) 65.59 42.95 32.40 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 120.34 81.49 59.96 

LI (50-80% AMI) 137.39 107.71 81.74 

Suburbs 

ELI (<30% AMI) 74.53 39.08 30.97 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 121.17 73.29 56.82 

LI (50-80% AMI) 149.56 106.87 84.54 

Nonmetropolitan 

ELI (<30% AMI) 121.45 56.74 43.80 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 160.26 97.60 69.64 

LI (50-80% AMI) 155.13 115.58 85.72 

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

—42—
31 In general, the Fair Market Rent is the 40th percentile rent paid by recent movers for 

standard-quality units within each region. For further information, see 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html 

Exhibit 4-5 details the affordable, available, 

and physically adequate stock relative to 

renter populations in the four regions for each 

of the standard income categories. The West 

has the greatest mismatch, with considerably 

fewer units per 100 households than the other 

three regions. 

Availability of 

Affordab le Housing St ock 

Exhibit 4-5. Rental Housing Stock 

by Census Region and Income Category, 2003 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Affordable, 

Affordable Available, 

and and 

 Affordable Available Adequate 

Sufficiency Relative to Fair Market Northeast 

Rent ELI (<30% AMI) 80.10 48.09 38.58 

HUD establishes a Fair Market Rent (FMR) VLI (30-50% AMI) 120.76 79.42 62.89 

for every housing market, which is intended LI (50-80% AMI) 136.85 101.93 81.66 

to represent the cost of decent existing Midwest 

housing that is neither new, nor luxury, nor ELI (<30% AMI) 81.41 46.86 36.31 

subsidized. The FMR is used in the largest VLI (30-50% AMI) 157.60 98.03 72.99 

housing assistance program, Housing Choice LI (50-80% AMI) 149.54 116.11 89.12 

Vouchers, to determine the maximum level of South

subsidy for assisted households.31 It is also ELI (<30% AMI) 82.80 45.89 33.93

used in other contexts as an indicator of 

reasonable housing costs in a given area. A VLI (30-50% AMI) 134.80 86.57 60.49 

natural question is whether the stock of LI (50-80% AMI) 153.12 114.08 82.68 

below-FMR housing is adequate to meet the West 

needs of households who can afford to pay no ELI (<30% AMI) 65.24 33.49 26.00 

more than the FMR. VLI (30-50% AMI) 95.23 60.14 46.74 

As Exhibit 4-6 illustrates, the answer is “no.” LI (50-80% AMI) 136.04 100.76 81.08 

While enough affordable units exist for each Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. 

region, the number of available units is 

Exhibit 4-6. Rental Stock of Below-FMR Units, 2003 

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 18,745 21,997 14,750 12,923 117.35 78.69 68.94 

Northeast 4,333 5,107 3,608 3,145 117.87 83.28 72.58 

Midwest 3,362 3,968 2,461 2,233 118.01 73.19 66.43 

South 6,132 7,325 4,837 4,129 119.45 78.87 67.34 

West 4,918 5,597 3,844 3,416 113.82 78.16 69.46 

City 9,009 10,237 7,190 6,171 113.63 79.81 68.50 

Suburb 6,923 8,268 5,414 4,892 119.42 78.19 70.65 

Nonmetropolitan 2,813 3,492 2,146 1,861 124.16 76.30 66.15 

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

—43— 
sufficient to house only 73–83 percent of the households, depending on 

location. 

Housing units per 100 households 

Exhibit 4-7. Availability of Affordable Rental Units 


Displays Substantial Stability over Time 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 

ELI (< 30% AMI) VLI (30- 50% AMI) 

LI (50- 80% AMI) MI (> 80% AMI) 

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

Exhibit 4-8. Geographic Pattern of 

Crowded Renter Households 

Trends in Rental Stock 

The availability of the affordable 

rental stock has changed very little 

over the past two decades. Exhibit 4-

7 shows the available rental units per 

100 households for the four standard 

income categories, over the period 

1985–2003.

32 

There was a slight increase in the 

availability of rental units for 

extremely-low and very-low-income 

households in the period 1985–1991, 

followed by a reversal in 1993–1995. 

Crowding 

While crowding (defined as more 

than one person per room) is not a 

component of the definition of worst 

case needs,33 it can be a symptom of 

affordability problems and housingrelated stress. Households may 

double up, and young adults or 

Households Incidence 

(thousands) Per 100 HH 

All Renters 1,615 4.81 

Metropolitan Status 

City 837 5.54 

Suburb 594 4.60 

Nonmetropolitan 185 3.29 

Region 

Northeast 328 4.56 

Midwest 149 2.26 

South 431 3.76 

West 708 8.44 

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

couples may delay forming new 

households, because of an inability to 

afford their own units. This section 

examines the extent of crowding by 

income and location as well as the 

supply of large units relative to the 

number of large households. 

About 5 percent of renter households 

are crowded, as is shown in Exhibit 

4-8. Households in nonmetropolitan 

areas have the lowest incidence of 

crowding, followed by suburban and 

then central city areas. The highest 

incidence of crowding is in the West. 

The other three regions are more 

32 This figure is based on custom tabulations of the American Housing Survey national 

datasets, for odd-numbered years in the period. 

33 Crowding is classified as a moderate problem rather than a severe problem. 

—44— 
Availability of 

Affordab le Housing St ock 

Exhibit 4-9. Household Characteristics of 

Crowded Renter Households 

Households Incidence 

(thousands) Per 100 HH 

All Renters 1,615 4.81 

Income 

ELI (<= 30% AMI) 522 5.75 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 464 7.05 

LI (50-80% AMI) 366 4.91 

MI (GT 80% AMI) 263 2.51 

Household Size 

1 Person NA NA 

2 Persons 54 0.61 

3 Persons 44 0.85 

4 Persons 205 5.39 

5+ Persons 1,312 44.34 

similar to one another, with the Midwest being the 

region with the lowest incidence. 

Larger households are much more likely than 

smaller households to be crowded. Exhibit 4-9 

shows a substantially greater incidence of crowding 

among households with five or more persons, with 

44 percent of such large households being crowded. 

Indeed, a renter household with five or more 

members is about eight times more likely to be 

crowded than a renter household with four persons. 

Despite the inverse relationship between income and 

crowding, extremely-low-income households show 

less crowding than very-low-income households do. 

The explanation is that extremely-low-income 

households are disproportionately likely to be oneperson households, which cannot be crowded. 

Crowding experienced by large families is not 

caused simply by a lack of large units. The 

number of affordable large units is abundant relative 

to the number of large households. In Exhibit 4-10 

the Affordable line is entirely above the 100-unitsper-large-household line that denotes 

sufficient stock. The number of 

affordable units with five or more 

rooms is two to five times larger than 

the number of households with five or 

more persons. The main cause of 600 

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

Survey. 

Exhibit 4-10. Insufficiency of Large Units is


Primarily a Problem of Availability for 


Large Families, not Affordability 


crowding must be the lack of available 

affordable units. Thus, crowding does 

not appear to be caused by a lack of 

large units, but by the fact that smaller 

households prefer these units as well 

and keep them off the market. 

Exhibit 4-11 summarizes the supply of 

rental units with five or more rooms 

relative to households with five or 

more persons. Even at 30 percent of 

AMI, there are almost four large units Large units per 100 large households 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

for every household, and this increases 

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

to five or more units per household at 

Incom e as percent of Area Median Incom e higher incomes. However, only 

four units are available for each ten Affordable Available Adequate

extremely-low-income households that 

need large units. Even for very-low- Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. 

—45— 
income renters, there are only nine units for every ten households. 

Exhibit 4-11. Metropolitan Patterns of Supply Hispanic renter households are 

of Large Units for Large Households more likely to be crowded. In 2003, 

(5+ persons and 5+ rooms only) 35 percent of very-low-income 

Hispanic households have no severe 

Units per 100 Large Households problems yet are overcrowded 

Affordable, according to the one-person-per-room 

Affordable Available, benchmark (Appendix, Table A-9). and and 

Income Affordable Available Adequate Hispanic families are more likely to 

live in multi-generational households 

Nation in non-caregiving relationships 

ELI (<30% AMI) 379.80 41.10 16.82 (Census 2003). Non-Hispanic blacks, VLI (30-50% AMI) 508.78 94.28 45.81 and especially whites, are less likely 

LI (50-80% AMI) 551.30 109.27 54.05 to live in this arrangement

34 and much 

Central Cities less likely to be overcrowded. Thus 

the availability of large units in ELI (<30% AMI) 267.30 37.36 17.95 

regions where the Hispanic population VLI (30-50% AMI) 421.34 86.87 45.13 is large is worthy of consideration. 

LI (50-80% AMI) 467.69 98.54 51.14 

The importance of this association is Suburbs increased by the fact that Hispanics 

ELI (<30% AMI) 349.81 39.56 13.84 

represent the fastest-growing segment 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 510.14 85.42 42.91 of the U.S. population. The Hispanic 

LI (50-80% AMI) 566.89 105.79 53.33 population increased by 58 percent 

Nonmetropolitan between 1990 and 2000, and is 

ELI (<30% AMI) 928.68 60.94 20.89 projected to increase another 

VLI (30-50% AMI) 792.21 140.23 55.18 34 percent by 2010 (U.S. Census 

LI (50-80% AMI) 769.02 150.49 64.71 Bureau 2004b). 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey. Hispanics are concentrated in the 

West, as 43 percent of the Hispanic 

population lived there in 2000 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2001). The West also is the region where the incidence of 

crowding is twice as great as other regions (Exhibit 4-8) and that has the 

most severe shortage of VLI-affordable units, with only 60 units available 

per 100 very-low-income renters (Exhibit 4-5). 

34 While 8 percent of both black and Hispanic adults over 30 were grandparents living with 

their grandchildren in 2000 (compared with 2 percent of non-Hispanic whites over 30), only 

35 percent of these Hispanic grandparents lived there to care for the grandchildren, compared 

with 52 percent of the black grandparents (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

—46— 
Exhibit 4-12 shows that for every 100 large 

very-low-income renter households in the 

West, only 48 large units are available. The 

availability of large affordable units is 

substantially more limited in the West than 

in other regions. Available large units for 

very-low-income renters are fully adequate 

in the Midwest and South, at least on a 

Availability of 

Affordab le Housing St ock 

Exhibit 4-12. Regional Patterns of Supply 


of Large Units for Large Households 


(5+ persons and 5+ rooms only) 


Units per 100 Large Households 

Affordable, 

Affordable Available, 

and and 

Income Affordable Available Adequate 

regional basis. 

Exhibit 2-8 demonstrated that the number of 

Hispanic very-low-income renters increased 

by 25 percent between 2001 and 2003, 

which could account for most of the 

increase in worst case needs. 

Northeast 

ELI (<30% AMI) 

VLI (30-50% AMI)

LI (50-80% AMI)

Midwest 

ELI (<30% AMI) 

VLI (30-50% AMI)

LI (50-80% AMI)

South 

ELI (<30% AMI) 

VLI (30-50% AMI)

LI (50-80% AMI)

West 

ELI (<30% AMI) 

VLI (30-50% AMI)

LI (50-80% AMI)

419.11 

557.92 

573.06 

436.55 

716.76 

744.47 

403.18 

620.25 

678.78 

271.05 

258.98 

323.38 

45.77 26.48 

85.97 51.89 

94.65 54.00 

57.55 21.97 

150.61 63.09 

160.67 69.99 

44.73 16.26 

115.11 48.74 

135.06 56.91 

19.35 6.27 

48.26 30.27 

67.79 43.58 

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

—47—

Works Cited 

APPENDIX 

Works Cited 

Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. 

2000 Green Book: Background Material and Data on Programs within the 

Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Hill, Martha S. 2003. “Who Has Severe Housing Cost Burdens and How 

Persistent Over Time are They?” Unpublished Manuscript, Survey 

Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 

Iceland, John. 2003. “Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty 1996– 

1999.” Current Population Report, P-70-91. U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-91.pdf. 

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2005. “State of 

the Nation’s Housing: 2005.” Cambridge, MA. www.jchs.harvard.edu 

Khadduri, Jill, Kimberly Burnett and David Rodda. 2003. “Targeting 

Housing Production Subsidies: Literature Review.” U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/targetinglitreview.pdf 

Shroder, Mark.. 2002. “Does housing assistance perversely affect selfsufficiency? A review essay.” Journal of Housing Economics. 

11: 381–417. 

Susin, Scott. 2003. “Discrepancies Between Measured Income in the 

American Housing Survey (AHS) and the Current Population Survey 

(CPS): Final Report.” U.S. Census Bureau Staff Papers on Income. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/papers.html 

Susin, Scott. 2005. Working paper. “Comparison of Rent Burdens and 

Housing Assistance in the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP) and the American Housing Survey (AHS): Cross-Sectional and 

Dynamic Analyses.” 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. “The Hispanic Population: 2000.” 

Census 2000 Brief C2KBR/01-3. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/01, 

American Housing Survey for the United States: 2001. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. “Grandparents Living with Grandchildren: 

2000.” Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-31. 

—49—
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004a. “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership 

(CPS/HVS): Annual Statistics 2003 (Table 1).” Retrieved March 4, 2005, 

from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/prevann.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004b. “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, 

and Hispanic Origin.” Retrieved March 3, 2005, from 

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. “American Housing Survey for the United 

States: 2003.” Series H150/03, Housing and Household Economic Statistics 

Division. Retrieved June 16, 2005, from 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs01_2000wts/ 

ahs01_2000wts.html. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. 2004. “Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families: Sixth Annual Report to Congress.” 

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/indexar.htm 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. 2005a. “Programs of HUD, 2005: Major 

Mortgage, Grant, Assistance and Regulatory Programs.” 

http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/whatsnew/ProgramsHUD05.pdf 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. 2005b. “FY 2005 HUD Income Limits 

Briefing Material.” http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il05/index.html 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. 2004. Codebook for the American Housing 

Survey, Public Use File: 1997 and Later. 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. December 2003. Trends in Worst Case Needs 

for Housing, 1978–1999: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing 

Needs—Plus Update on Worst Case Needs in 2001. 

—50—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems 

and Supplies of Affordable Housing 

List of Tables 

Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households 

by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003 .............................................. 52

Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by

Relative Income, 2001 and 2003 ................................................... 53

Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 

1978–2003 —Number of Households ........................................... 54

Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 

1978–2003 —Percentage of Households....................................... 55

Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter 

Households by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003........................... 56

Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems among Renters by

Relative Income, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage ......... 57

Table A–5. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-LowIncome Renters by Household Type, 2001 and 2003—Number 

and Percentage ............................................................................... 60

Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of VeryLow-Income Renters by Household Type, 2003 ........................... 62

Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of 

Extremely-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2003 ......... 64

Table A–7a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of WorstCase Renters by Household Type, 2003........................................ 66

Table A–7b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of 

Extremely-Low-Income Worst-Case Renters by Household 

Type, 2003 ..................................................................................... 68

Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-LowIncome Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 2001 and 2003—

Number and Percentage ................................................................. 70

Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems among VeryLow-Income Renters by Region, 2001 and 2003—Number and 

Percentage...................................................................................... 72

Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems among VeryLow-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 2001 and 

2003—Number and Percentage ..................................................... 74

Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units, by 

Affordability of Rent and Income of Occupants, 2003.................. 76

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and 

Available to Them, by Relative Income, 1985–2003 .................... 77

—51—
Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households 

by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003 

2003 0–30% 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

31–50% 51–80% 81–120% >120% 

All 

Incomes 

Total Households (1000) 

Unassisted with Severe Problems a 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only a 

Unassisted with No Problems a 

Assisted 

9,077 

3,999 

1,145 

947 

2,986 

6,581 

1,176 

2,860 

1,275 

1,270 

7,460 

436 

2,254 

3,842 

929 

5,416 

158 

757 

3,942 

558 

5,080 

117 

542 

3,952 

469 

33,614 

5,887 

7,557 

13,958 

6,211 

Any with Severe Problems 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 

Severely Inadequate Housing 

5,136 

4,945 

401 

1,344 

1,160 

213 

476 

280 

199 

186 

64 

122 

131 

29 

102 

7,273 

6,477 

1,038 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only b 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 

Crowded Housing 

1,936 

1,664 

364 

216 

3,458 

3,059 

474 

403 

2,529 

1,872 

497 

349 

855 

413 

349 

148 

607 

200 

331 

104 

9,385 

7,207 

2,017 

1,220 

Any with No Problems 2,005 1,779 4,455 4,375 4,342 16,956 

2001 

Total Households (1000) 

Unassisted with Severe Problems a 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only a 

Unassisted with No Problems a 

Assisted 

8,659 

3,825 

1,020 

872 

2,942 

6,244 

1,189 

2,611 

1,152 

1,292 

7,200 

391 

2,296 

3,660 

853 

6,313 

233 

884 

4,515 

681 

5,311 

120 

473 

4,208 

510 

33,727 

5,758 

7,283 

14,407 

6,279 

Any with Severe Problems 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 

Severely Inadequate Housing 

5,063 

4,838 

449 

1,376 

1,184 

231 

457 

271 

192 

271 

114 

157 

143 

5 

139 

7,310 

6,412 

1,168 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only b 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 

Crowded Housing 

1,713 

1,398 

411 

219 

3,125 

2,670 

441 

409 

2,570 

1,914 

476 

343 

1,010 

540 

333 

171 

539 

156 

298 

120 

8,957 

6,679 

1,960 

1,262 

Any with No Problems 1,882 1,744 4,173 5,032 4,629 17,460 

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

a

 See Table A-3 for housing problems experienced by unassisted renters. 

b

 See Table A-2 for estimates of the incidence of non-severe problems without regard to whether severe problems are also 

present. 

—52—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households 

by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

All 

2003 0–30% 31–50% 51–80% 81–120% >120% Incomes 

Total Households (1000) 6,677 7,832 12,278 14,281 31,186 72,254 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 3,392 1,596 1,313 642 568 7,511 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,517 2,232 3,226 2,844 2,413 12,233 

Unassisted with No Problems 1,769 4,004 7,738 10,795 28,204 52,510 

——— 

Any with Severe Problems 3,392 1,596 1,313 642 568 7,511 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 3,273 1,481 1,148 502 308 6,711 

Severely Inadequate Housing 198 148 182 145 260 933 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,517 2,232 3,226 2,844 2,413 12,233 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 1,338 1,891 2,780 2,400 1,837 10,246 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 227 304 323 278 444 1,576 

Crowded Housing 64 148 214 226 166 817 

Any with No Problems 1,769 4,004 7,738 10,795 28,204 52,510 

2001 

Total Households (1000) 6,830 7,381 11,403 15,215 30,879 71,708 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 3,715 1,655 1,111 772 484 7,736 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,485 2,013 3,278 3,038 2,120 11,934 

Unassisted with No Problems 1,629 3,713 7,015 11,406 28,275 52,038 

——— 

Any with Severe Problems 3,715 1,655 1,111 772 484 7,736 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 3,590 1,553 976 585 214 6,918 

Severely Inadequate Housing 208 115 160 187 270 940 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,485 2,013 3,278 3,038 2,120 11,934 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 1,313 1,767 2,794 2,568 1,444 9,886 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 221 237 390 347 500 1,695 

Crowded Housing 69 128 239 206 205 847 

Any with No Problems 1,629 3,713 7,015 11,406 28,275 52,038 

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

—53—
Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1978–2003 

—Number of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 

Total Households (1000) 77,389 90,887 93,147 94,723 97,694 99,487102,802105,435105,868 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 7,692 8,180 10,430 10,350 11,744 12,206 12,203 13,494 13,398 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 11,877 15,969 16,612 16,399 17,693 17,900 18,237 19,217 19,790 

Unassisted with No Problems 54,714 61,939 61,302 62,950 63,023 63,682 66,163 66,445 66,468 

Assisted 3,103 4,790 4,801 5,025 5,230 5,697 6,168 6,279 6,211 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 5,696 8,434 8,925 9,725 11,158 12,223 12,141 13,330 13,188 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 7,669 12,888 14,145 14,333 15,481 15,115 15,862 16,923 17,856 

Severely Inadequate Housing 2,778 1,227 2,874 1,901 2,022 1,797 2,056 2,108 1,971 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 4,295 5,181 4,531 4,225 4,348 5,191 4,821 4,504 4,311 

Crowded Housing 3,266 2,436 2,527 2,386 2,554 2,807 2,570 2,631 2,559 

Renter Households (1000) 26,919 32,724 33,351 33,472 34,150 34,000 34,007 33,727 33,614 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 4,695 5,075 5,580 5,671 5,777 6,024 5,591 5,758 5,887 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 5,976 7,428 7,342 7,287 7,651 7,451 7,560 7,283 7,557 

Unassisted with No Problems 13,519 15,429 15,627 15,489 15,492 14,827 14,657 14,407 13,958 

Assisted 2,730 4,794 4,801 5,025 5,230 5,697 6,203 6,279 6,211 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,664 5,638 5,478 5,947 6,236 6,686 6,301 6,412 6,477 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 4,765 6,852 6,964 7,157 7,424 6,778 7,141 6,916 7,468 

Severely Inadequate Housing 1,677 861 1,347 909 849 1,072 1,183 1,168 1,038 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 2,100 2,831 2,375 2,254 2,277 3,021 2,768 2,508 2,525 

Crowded Housing 1,548 1,512 1,644 1,503 1,673 1,891 1,666 1,658 1,615 

Owner Households (1000) 50,470 58,163 59,796 61,251 63,544 65,487 68,795 71,708 72,254 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 2,524 3,112 4,850 4,678 5,967 6,182 6,604 7,736 7,511 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 5,501 8,538 9,270 9,112 10,042 10,449 10,684 11,934 12,233 

Unassisted with No Problems 42,445 46,531 45,675 47,461 47,531 48,855 51,507 52,038 52,510 

——— 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 1,645 2,798 3,447 3,778 4,922 5,537 5,841 6,918 6,711 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 2,428 6,037 7,181 7,176 8,057 8,337 8,716 10,007 10,388 

Severely Inadequate Housing 939 349 1,527 992 1,173 725 867 940 933 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 2,054 2,356 2,156 1,971 2,071 2,170 2,064 1,996 1,786 

Crowded Housing 1,625 931 883 883 881 916 894 973 944 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

—54— 
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1978–2003 

—Percentage of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 

Total Households 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 100.0%100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 9.9% 9.0% 11.2% 10.9% 12.0% 12.3% 11.9% 12.8% 12.7% 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 15.3% 17.6% 17.8% 17.3% 18.1% 18.0% 17.7% 18.2% 18.7% 

Unassisted with No Problems 70.7% 68.2% 65.8% 66.5% 64.5% 64.0% 64.4% 63.0% 62.8% 

Assisted 4.0% 5.3% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.7% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 7.4% 9.3% 9.6% 10.3% 11.4% 12.3% 11.8% 12.6% 12.5% 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 9.9% 14.2% 15.2% 15.1% 15.8% 15.2% 15.4% 16.1% 16.9% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 3.6% 1.4% 3.1% 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 5.6% 5.7% 4.9% 4.5% 4.5% 5.2% 4.7% 4.3% 4.1% 

Crowded Housing 4.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 

Renter Households 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 100.0%100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 17.4% 15.5% 16.7% 16.9% 16.9% 17.7% 16.4% 17.1% 17.5% 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 22.2% 22.7% 22.0% 21.8% 22.4% 21.9% 22.2% 21.6% 22.5% 

Unassisted with No Problems 50.2% 47.2% 46.9% 46.3% 45.4% 43.6% 43.1% 42.7% 41.5% 

Assisted 10.1% 14.7% 14.4% 15.0% 15.3% 16.8% 18.2% 18.6% 18.5% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 13.6% 17.2% 16.4% 17.8% 18.3% 19.7% 18.5% 19.0% 19.3% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 17.7% 20.9% 20.9% 21.4% 21.7% 19.9% 21.0% 20.5% 22.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 6.2% 2.6% 4.0% 2.7% 2.5% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 7.8% 8.7% 7.1% 6.7% 6.7% 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 7.5% 

Crowded Housing 5.8% 4.6% 4.9% 4.5% 4.9% 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 

Owner Households 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 100.0%100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 5.0% 5.4% 8.1% 7.6% 9.4% 9.4% 9.6% 10.8% 10.4% 

Unassisted with non-Severe 

Problems Only 10.9% 14.7% 15.5% 14.9% 15.8% 16.0% 15.5% 16.6% 16.9% 

Unassisted with No Problems 84.1% 80.0% 76.4% 77.5% 74.8% 74.6% 74.9% 72.6% 72.7% 

——— 

Cost Burden >50% of Income 3.3% 4.8% 5.8% 6.2% 7.7% 8.5% 8.5% 9.6% 9.3% 

Cost Burden 30–50% of Income 4.8% 10.4% 12.0% 11.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 14.0% 14.4% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 1.9% 0.6% 2.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 4.1% 4.1% 3.6% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 

Crowded Housing 3.2% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Surveys 

—55— 
Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households 

by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

All 

2003 0–30% 31–50% 51–80% 81–120% >120% Incomes 

Total Unassisted Households (1000) 6,093 5,309 6,531 4,858 4,611 27,402 

Any with Severe Problems 3,996 1,180 436 158 117 5,887 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,875 1,039 256 57 29 5,255 

Severely Inadequate Housing 280 164 182 101 88 816 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,150 2,855 2,254 757 542 7,557 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 966 2,525 1,665 372 180 5,709 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 253 392 435 307 302 1,690 

Crowded Housing 153 338 310 133 87 1,022 

Any with No Problems 947 1,275 3,842 3,942 3,952 13,958 

2001 

Total Unassisted Households (1000) 5,716 4,952 6,347 5,631 4,801 27,448 

Any with Severe Problems 3,825 1,189 391 233 120 5,758 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,692 1,029 233 94 5 5,053 

Severely Inadequate Housing 292 195 163 139 115 904 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,020 2,611 2,296 884 473 7,283 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 806 2,245 1,719 461 135 5,366 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 287 370 417 297 265 1,635 

Crowded Housing 151 353 312 151 100 1,067 

Any with No Problems 872 1,152 3,660 4,515 4,208 14,407 

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

—56—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems among Renters 

by Relative Income, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Renter Households (1000) 33,727 33,614 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 5,758 5,887 17.1% 17.5% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 7,283 7,557 21.6% 22.5% 

Unassisted with No Problems 14,407 13,958 42.7% 41.5% 

Assisted 6,279 6,211 18.6% 18.5% 

Any with Severe Problems 7,310 7,273 21.7% 21.6% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 6,412 6,477 19.0% 19.3% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 1,168 1,038 3.5% 3.1% 

Rent Burden Only a

 5,595 5,727 16.6% 17.0% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 8,957 9,385 26.6% 27.9% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 6,679 7,207 19.8% 21.4% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 1,960 2,017 5.8% 6.0% 

Crowded Housing 1,262 1,220 3.7% 3.6% 

Rent Burden Only 5,896 6,294 17.5% 18.7% 

Any with No Problems 17,460 16,956 51.8% 50.4% 

Income 0-30% HAMFI (1000) 8,659 9,077 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 3,825 3,999 44.2% 44.1% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,020 1,145 11.8% 12.6% 

Unassisted with No Problems 872 947 10.1% 10.4% 

Assisted 2,942 2,986 34.0% 32.9% 

Any with Severe Problems 5,063 5,136 58.5% 56.6% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 4,838 4,945 55.9% 54.5% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 449 401 5.2% 4.4% 

Rent Burden Only a

 4,172 4,317 48.2% 47.6% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,713 1,936 19.8% 21.3% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,398 1,664 16.1% 18.3% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 411 364 4.7% 4.0% 

Crowded Housing 219 216 2.5% 2.4% 

Rent Burden Only 1,111 1,383 12.8% 15.2% 

Any with No Problems 1,882 2,005 21.7% 22.1% 

—57—
2001 2003 2001 2003 

Income 30-50% HAMFI (1000) 6,244 6,581 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,189 1,176 19.0% 17.9% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 2,611 2,860 41.8% 43.5% 

Unassisted with No Problems 1,152 1,275 18.4% 19.4% 

Assisted 1,292 1,270 20.7% 19.3% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,376 1,344 22.0% 20.4% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,184 1,160 19.0% 17.6% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 231 213 3.7% 3.2% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,072 1,059 17.2% 16.1% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 3,125 3,458 50.0% 52.5% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 2,670 3,059 42.8% 46.5% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 441 474 7.1% 7.2% 

Crowded Housing 409 403 6.6% 6.1% 

Rent Burden Only a

 2,323 2,632 37.2% 40.0% 

Any with No Problems 1,744 1,779 27.9% 27.0% 

Income 50-80% HAMFI (1000) 7,200 7,460 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 391 436 5.4% 5.8% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 2,296 2,254 31.9% 30.2% 

Unassisted with No Problems 3,660 3,842 50.8% 51.5% 

Assisted 853 929 11.8% 12.5% 

Any with Severe Problems 457 476 6.3% 6.4% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 271 280 3.8% 3.8% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 192 199 2.7% 2.7% 

Rent Burden Only a

 236 265 3.3% 3.6% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 2,570 2,529 35.7% 33.9% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,914 1,872 26.6% 25.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 476 497 6.6% 6.7% 

Crowded Housing 343 349 4.8% 4.7% 

Rent Burden Only 1,800 1,716 25.0% 23.0% 

Any with No Problems 4,173 4,455 58.0% 59.7% 

—58—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Income 80-120% HAMFI (1000) 6,313 5,416 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 233 158 3.7% 2.9% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 884 757 14.0% 14.0% 

Unassisted with No Problems 4,515 3,942 71.5% 72.8% 

Assisted 681 558 10.8% 10.3% 

Any with Severe Problems 271 186 4.3% 3.4% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 114 64 1.8% 1.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 157 122 2.5% 2.3% 

Rent Burden Only a

 110 61 1.7% 1.1% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,010 855 16.0% 15.8% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 540 413 8.6% 7.6% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 333 349 5.3% 6.4% 

Crowded Housing 171 148 2.7% 2.7% 

Rent Burden Only 518 376 8.2% 6.9% 

Any with No Problems 5,032 4,375 79.7% 80.8% 

Income >120% HAMFI (1000) 5,311 5,080 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 120 117 2.3% 2.3% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 473 542 8.9% 10.7% 

Unassisted with No Problems 4,208 3,952 79.2% 77.8% 

Assisted 510 469 9.6% 9.2% 

Any with Severe Problems 143 131 2.7% 2.6% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 5 29 0.1% 0.6% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 139 102 2.6% 2.0% 

Rent Burden Only a

 5 25 0.1% 0.5% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 539 607 10.1% 11.9% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 156 200 2.9% 3.9% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 298 331 5.6% 6.5% 

Crowded Housing 120 104 2.3% 2.0% 

Rent Burden Only 145 187 2.7% 3.7% 

Any with No Problems 4,629 4,342 87.2% 85.5% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

—59—
Table A–5. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-Low-Income Renters 

by Household Type, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Elderly (1000) 3,407 3,273 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,182 1,129 34.7% 34.5% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 524 519 15.4% 15.9% 

Unassisted with No Problems 465 496 13.6% 15.2% 

Assisted 1,236 1,129 36.3% 34.5% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,557 1,431 45.7% 43.7% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,472 1,349 43.2% 41.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 133 128 3.9% 3.9% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,316 1,222 38.6% 37.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 842 869 24.7% 26.6% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 782 810 23.0% 24.7% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 121 99 3.6% 3.0% 

Crowded Housing 17 2 0.5% 0.1% 

Rent Burden Only 704 769 20.7% 23.5% 

Any with No Problems 1,007 974 29.6% 29.8% 

Families with Children (1000) 5,985 6,379 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,807 1,849 30.2% 29.0% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,757 1,901 29.4% 29.8% 

Unassisted with No Problems 605 834 10.1% 13.1% 

Assisted 1,816 1,795 30.3% 28.1% 

Any with Severe Problems 2,435 2,448 40.7% 38.4% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 2,256 2,307 37.7% 36.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 300 241 5.0% 3.8% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,907 2,007 31.9% 31.5% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 2,315 2,493 38.7% 39.1% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,818 2,101 30.4% 32.9% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 395 375 6.6% 5.9% 

Crowded Housing 597 592 10.0% 9.3% 

Rent Burden Only 1,397 1,603 23.3% 25.1% 

Any with No Problems 1,235 1,439 20.6% 22.6% 

—60—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Non-elderly Disabled (expanded; 1000) 1,207 1,403 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 407 511 33.7% 36.4% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 177 224 14.7% 16.0% 

Unassisted with No Problems 108 100 8.9% 7.1% 

Assisted 514 568 42.6% 40.5% 

Any with Severe Problems 569 653 47.1% 46.5% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 543 606 45.0% 43.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 53 76 4.4% 5.4% 

Rent Burden Only a

 450 495 37.3% 35.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 315 385 26.1% 27.4% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 290 335 24.0% 23.9% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 62 94 5.1% 6.7% 

Crowded Housing 2 0 0.2% 0.0% 

Rent Burden Only 251 291 20.8% 20.7% 

Any with No Problems 323 364 26.8% 25.9% 

Other Households (1000) 4,304 4,603 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,618 1,686 37.6% 36.6% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,172 1,361 27.2% 29.6% 

Unassisted with No Problems 846 792 19.7% 17.2% 

Assisted 669 764 15.5% 16.6% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,878 1,948 43.6% 42.3% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,752 1,843 40.7% 40.0% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 194 170 4.5% 3.7% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,570 1,652 36.5% 35.9% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,366 1,647 31.7% 35.8% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,180 1,476 27.4% 32.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 275 271 6.4% 5.9% 

Crowded Housing 13 26 0.3% 0.6% 

Rent Burden Only 1,081 1,351 25.1% 29.4% 

Any with No Problems 1,060 1,008 24.6% 21.9% 

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

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—61—
Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics 


of Very-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2003 


Families Nonfamily Other 

Elderly, with Other Reporting Non-

 Total No Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Renter Households (1000) 15,658 3,273 6,379 992 1,403 3,611 

Number of Children 13,000 0 13,000 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 36,386 4,145 23,523 2,278 1,839 4,600 

Children/Household 0.83 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/Household 2.32 1.27 3.69 2.30 1.31 1.27 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 5,176 1,129 1,849 296 511 1,390 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems 

Only 4,004 519 1,901 363 224 998 

Unassisted with No Problems 2,222 496 834 150 100 642 

Assisted 4,256 1,129 1,795 183 568 581 

Any with Severe Problems 6,480 1,431 2,448 358 653 1,590 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 6,105 1,349 2,307 335 606 1,508 

Severely Inadequate Housing 615 128 241 41 76 129 

Rent Burden Only a

 5,376 1,222 2,007 299 495 1,353 

Any with non-Severe Problems 

Only 5,394 869 2,493 432 385 1,215 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 4,722 810 2,101 398 335 1,078 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 839 99 375 61 94 210 

Crowded Housing 619 2 592 15 0 11 

Rent Burden Only 4,014 769 1,603 356 291 995 

Any with No Problems 3,784 974 1,439 202 364 806 

—62—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Families Nonfamily Other 

Elderly, with Other Reporting Non-

 Total No Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Other Characteristics 

One Person in Household 6,563 2,501 129 0 1,040 2,894 

Husband-Wife Family 3,318 468 2,148 571 130 0 

Female Head 9,561 2,182 4,367 446 779 1,787 

Minority Head 7,956 1,089 4,180 605 556 1,526 

AFDC/SSI Income 2,751 504 1,359 0 888 0 

Social Security Income 4,011 2,815 479 0 716 0 

Income Below 50% Poverty 3,023 414 1,486 128 196 799 

Income Below Poverty 7,668 1,417 3,550 291 905 1,504 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 12,151 2,493 5,479 621 1,218 2,339 

High School Graduate 10,241 1,690 4,015 673 840 3,023 

Two+ Years Post High School 2,297 371 646 220 191 870 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 8,609 415 4,570 837 275 2,512 

 At Least Full Time 6,778 220 3,790 725 132 1,911 

Earnings Main Source of Income 9,063 326 4,750 895 205 2,888 

Housing Rated Poor 1,063 79 570 75 107 232 

Housing Rated Good+ 11,060 2,684 4,245 675 981 2,475 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 1,344 88 742 92 141 281 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 10,603 2,613 4,005 685 928 2,372 

In Central Cities 7,466 1,395 3,080 451 633 1,907 

Suburbs 5,506 1,236 2,306 399 418 1,147 

Northeast 3,444 1,018 1,221 218 388 599 

South 5,294 892 2,315 336 445 1,306 

West 3,592 576 1,629 293 261 833 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—63—
Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics 


of Extremely-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2003 


Elderly, Families Nonfamily Other 

No with Other Reporting Non-

 Total Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Renter Households (1000) 9,077 2,199 3,546 370 1,062 1,900 

Number of Children 7,419 0 7,419 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 20,019 2,709 12,810 854 1,298 2,349 

Children/Household 0.82 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/Household 2.21 1.23 3.61 2.30 1.22 1.24 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 3,999 862 1,474 186 460 1,017 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems 

Only 1,145 203 560 67 84 231 

Unassisted with No Problems 947 272 286 36 45 308 

Assisted 2,986 862 1,226 81 473 344 

Any with Severe Problems 5,136 1,134 2,016 219 590 1,176 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 4,945 1,086 1,954 216 552 1,137 

Severely Inadequate Housing 401 94 154 13 66 75 

Rent Burden Only a 4,317 969 1,681 188 454 1,025 

Any with non-Severe Problems 

Only 1,936 435 882 88 221 309 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,664 395 767 73 200 228 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 364 58 139 22 43 103 

Crowded Housing 216 2 206 6 3 

Rent Burden Only 1,383 376 564 61 179 203 

Any with No Problems 2,005 630 648 63 250 414 

—64—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Elderly, Families Nonfamily Other 

No with Other Reporting Non-

 Total Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Other Characteristics 

One Person in Household 4,290 1,751 106 0 866 1,566 

Husband-Wife Family 1,421 262 886 208 66 0 

Female Head 5,913 1,502 2,629 186 613 982 

Minority Head 4,668 774 2,422 229 421 823 

AFDC/SSI Income 2,129 415 1,012 0 702 0 

Social Security Income 2,649 1,844 293 0 512 0 

Income Below 50% Poverty 3,023 414 1,486 128 196 799 

Income Below Poverty 7,209 1,405 3,163 277 904 1,460 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 8,924 2,143 3,527 357 1,047 1,849 

High School Graduate 5,557 1,055 2,096 238 612 1,557 

Two+ Years Post High School 1,209 233 289 83 136 467 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 3,122 104 1,853 225 68 872 

 At Least Full Time 1,639 37 1,161 118 7 316 

Earnings Main Source of Income 3,845 119 2,115 286 58 1,267 

Housing Rated Poor 667 51 362 41 92 121 

Housing Rated Good+ 6,361 1,811 2,285 247 761 1,257 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 815 56 477 29 107 147 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 6,043 1,743 2,096 257 720 1,226 

In Central Cities 4,474 977 1,755 194 501 1,046 

Suburbs 3,040 829 1,211 130 300 570 

Northeast 2,138 712 699 87 316 323 

South 3,085 593 1,330 139 338 685 

West 1,894 367 809 101 183 435 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey . 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—65—
Table A–7a. Housing Problems and Characteristics 

of Worst-Case Renters by Household Type, 2003 

Elderly, Families Nonfamily Other 

No with Other Reporting NonTotal Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Renter Households (1000) 5,176 1,129 1,849 296 511 1,390 

Number of Children 3,732 0 3,732 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 11,390 1,490 6,733 666 654 1,847 

Children/Household 0.72 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/Household 2.20 1.32 3.64 2.25 1.28 1.33 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 5,176 1,129 1,849 296 511 1,390 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems 

Only 5,176 1,129 1,849 296 511 1,390 

Unassisted with No Problems 

Assisted 

Any with Severe Problems 5,176 1,129 1,849 296 511 1,390 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 4,914 1,067 1,764 279 486 1,318 

Severely Inadequate Housing 444 97 167 27 50 103 

Rent Burden Only a 4,330 969 1,517 252 398 1,194 

Any with non-Severe Problems 

Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Crowded Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rent Burden Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Any with No Problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 

—66—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Total 

Elderly, 

No 

Children 

Families

 with 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonfamily 

Reporting 

SSI Income 

Other 

Nonfamily 

Other Characteristics 

One Person in Household 2,337 821 50 0 386 1,080 

Husband-Wife Family 984 185 584 178 36 0 

Female Head 3,082 717 1,281 138 271 674 

Minority Head 2,417 352 1,160 176 193 536 

AFDC/SSI Income 953 154 492 0 307 0 

Social Security Income 1,430 992 187 0 252 0 

Income Below 50% Poverty 1,310 177 619 60 102 351 

Income Below Poverty 3,322 577 1,417 137 395 796 

Income Below 150% of Poverty 4,556 941 1,739 241 489 1,145 

High School Graduate 3,494 642 1,132 204 318 1,197 

Two+ Years Post High School 918 153 202 79 78 405 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 2,368 90 1,116 220 61 880 

 At Least Full Time 1,508 46 763 162 25 513 

Earnings Main Source of Income 2,877 95 1,252 271 57 1,202 

Housing Rated Poor 385 40 197 21 41 87 

Housing Rated Good+ 3,529 890 1,156 201 327 955 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 402 26 198 25 40 114 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 3,516 883 1,180 207 320 925 

In Central Cities 2,532 505 840 151 235 801 

Suburbs 1,987 470 776 120 177 444 

Northeast 1,146 358 369 76 136 207 

South 1,649 318 585 87 168 491 

West 1,371 185 596 108 111 370 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey . 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—67—
Table A–7b. Housing Problems and Characteristics 


of Extremely-Low-Income Worst-Case Renters by Household Type, 2003 


Families Nonfamily Other 

Elderly, with Other Reporting Non-

 Total No Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Renter Households (1000) 3,999 862 1,474 186 460 1,017 

Number of Children 3,056 0 3,056 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 8,738 1,111 5,351 414 564 1,297 

Children/Household 0.76 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/Household 2.18 1.29 3.63 2.23 1.23 1.28 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 3,999 862 1,474 186 460 1,017 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems 

Only 3,999 862 1,474 186 460 1,017 

Unassisted with No Problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Assisted 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Any with Severe Problems 3,999 862 1,474 186 460 1,017 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,878 822 1,446 183 444 982 

Severely Inadequate Housing 280 73 102 8 40 57 

Rent Burden Only a 3,379 734 1,224 160 363 898 

Any with non-Severe Problems 

Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Crowded Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rent Burden Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Any with No Problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 

—68—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Families Nonfamily Other 

Elderly, with Other Reporting Non-

 Total No Children Children Families SSI Income family 

Other Characteristics 

One Person in Household 1,883 647 50 0 369 817 

Husband-Wife Family 684 125 423 109 27 0 

Female Head 2,416 553 1,049 89 236 489 

Minority Head 1,889 284 926 112 171 397 

AFDC/SSI Income 860 139 443 0 279 0 

Social Security Income 1,122 745 151 0 226 0 

Income Below 50% Poverty 1,310 177 619 60 102 351 

Income Below Poverty 3,236 572 1,349 137 395 783 

Income Below 150% of Poverty 3,924 840 1,467 180 458 980 

High School Graduate 2,622 477 866 125 287 869 

Two+ Years Post High School 651 109 137 49 67 290 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 1,486 38 774 110 33 530 

 At Least Full Time 689 13 442 52 5 176 

Earnings Main Source of Income 2,039 54 929 160 36 860 

Housing Rated Poor 295 29 151 13 38 64 

Housing Rated Good+ 2,724 679 913 135 304 692 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 298 21 153 13 38 73 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 2,689 661 919 134 292 683 

In Central Cities 1,992 398 681 108 218 587 

Suburbs 1,458 351 582 60 148 317 

Northeast 891 283 285 48 126 149 

South 1,317 253 488 56 153 367 

West 960 120 433 67 87 253 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 2003 American Housing Survey. 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—69—
Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-Low-Income Renters 

by Race and Ethnicity, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Non-Hispanic White (1000) 7,604 7,702 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 2,758 2,758 36.3% 35.8% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,772 1,780 23.3% 23.1% 

Unassisted with No Problems 1,257 1,306 16.5% 17.0% 

Assisted 1,817 1,858 23.9% 24.1% 

Any with Severe Problems 3,329 3,260 43.8% 42.3% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,196 3,113 42.0% 40.4% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 242 248 3.2% 3.2% 

Rent Burden Only a

 2,866 2,795 37.7% 36.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 2,261 2,380 29.7% 30.9% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 2,004 2,162 26.4% 28.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 353 310 4.6% 4.0% 

Crowded Housing 105 105 1.4% 1.4% 

Rent Burden Only 1,820 1,989 23.9% 25.8% 

Any with No Problems 2,015 2,062 26.5% 26.8% 

Non-Hispanic Black (1000) 3,809 3,750 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,150 1,040 30.2% 27.7% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 786 921 20.6% 24.6% 

Unassisted with No Problems 388 443 10.2% 11.8% 

Assisted 1,485 1,346 39.0% 35.9% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,692 1,501 44.4% 40.0% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,546 1,398 40.6% 37.3% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 231 169 6.1% 4.5% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,282 1,186 33.7% 31.6% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,212 1,343 81.6% 99.8% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 996 1,147 67.1% 85.2% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 294 292 19.8% 21.7% 

Crowded Housing 120 100 8.1% 7.4% 

Rent Burden Only 822 962 55.4% 71.5% 

Any with No Problems 904 906 23.7% 24.2% 

—70—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Hispanic (1000) 2,614 3,260 100.00% 100.00% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 789 1,035 30.2% 31.7% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 838 1,070 32.1% 32.8% 

Unassisted with No Problems 301 346 11.5% 10.6% 

Assisted 685 809 26.2% 24.8% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,024 1,301 39.2% 39.9% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 921 1,195 35.2% 36.7% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 159 162 6.1% 5.0% 

Rent Burden Only a

 779 1,053 29.8% 32.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,054 1,370 135.3% 130.1% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 817 1,147 104.9% 108.9% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 148 194 19.0% 18.4% 

Crowded Housing 342 372 43.9% 35.3% 

Rent Burden Only 595 840 76.4% 79.8% 

Any with No Problems 536 588 20.5% 18.0% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

—71—
Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-Low-Income Renters 

by Region, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Northeast (1000) 3,446 3,444 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,143 1,146 33.2% 33.3% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 684 701 19.8% 20.4% 

Unassisted with No Problems 453 485 13.1% 14.1% 

Assisted 1,166 1,111 33.8% 32.3% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,541 1,507 44.7% 43.8% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,406 1,392 40.8% 40.4% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 227 184 6.6% 5.3% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,212 1,218 35.2% 35.4% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,020 1,043 29.6% 30.3% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 864 899 25.1% 26.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 169 150 4.9% 4.4% 

Crowded Housing 97 103 2.8% 3.0% 

Rent Burden Only 768 797 22.3% 23.1% 

Any with No Problems 885 895 25.7% 26.0% 

Midwest (1000) 3,005 3,327 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 916 1,009 30.5% 30.3% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 709 858 23.6% 25.8% 

Unassisted with No Problems 454 510 15.1% 15.3% 

Assisted 927 950 30.8% 28.6% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,188 1,266 39.5% 38.1% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,105 1,217 36.8% 36.6% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 130 81 4.3% 2.4% 

Rent Burden Only a

 970 1,105 32.3% 33.2% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 973 1,182 32.4% 35.5% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 855 1,063 28.5% 32.0% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 186 152 6.2% 4.6% 

Crowded Housing 56 73 1.9% 2.2% 

Rent Burden Only 735 972 24.5% 29.2% 

Any with No Problems 844 879 28.1% 26.4% 

—72—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

South (1000) 4,860 5,294 100.00% 100.00% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,601 1,649 32.9% 31.1% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,256 1,470 25.8% 27.8% 

Unassisted with No Problems 738 847 15.2% 16.0% 

Assisted 1,265 1,328 26.0% 25.1% 

Any with Severe Problems 2,039 2,063 42.0% 39.0% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,953 1,951 40.2% 36.9% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 136 195 2.8% 3.7% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,691 1,683 34.8% 31.8% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,624 1,906 33.4% 36.0% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,325 1,649 27.3% 31.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 355 391 7.3% 7.4% 

Crowded Housing 200 198 4.1% 3.7% 

Rent Burden Only 1,106 1,339 22.8% 25.3% 

Any with No Problems 1,196 1,324 24.6% 25.0% 

West (1000) 3,592 3,592 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,354 1,371 37.7% 38.2% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 981 975 27.3% 27.1% 

Unassisted with No Problems 380 380 10.6% 10.6% 

Assisted 877 866 24.4% 24.1% 

Any with Severe Problems 1,670 1,644 46.5% 45.8% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 1,560 1,546 43.4% 43.0% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 186 155 5.2% 4.3% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,370 1,370 38.1% 38.1% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,221 1,263 34.0% 35.2% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,024 1,112 28.5% 31.0% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 142 146 4.0% 4.1% 

Crowded Housing 276 246 7.7% 6.8% 

Rent Burden Only 825 907 23.0% 25.3% 

Any with No Problems 701 686 19.5% 19.1% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—73—
Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very-Low-Income Renters 

by Metropolitan Location, 2001 and 2003—Number and Percentage 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Central Cities (1000) 7,287 7,466 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 2,518 2,532 34.6% 33.9% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,769 1,869 24.3% 25.0% 

Unassisted with No Problems 828 968 11.4% 13.0% 

Assisted 2,172 2,096 29.8% 28.1% 

Any with Severe Problems 3,270 3,194 44.9% 42.8% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,039 2,951 41.7% 39.5% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 405 373 5.6% 5.0% 

Rent Burden Only a

 2,580 2,560 35.4% 34.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 2,410 2,546 33.1% 34.1% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,998 2,216 27.4% 29.7% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 478 401 6.6% 5.4% 

Crowded Housing 327 332 4.5% 4.4% 

Rent Burden Only 1,659 1,841 22.8% 24.7% 

Any with No Problems 1,607 1,727 22.1% 23.1% 

Suburbs (1000) 5,147 5,506 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 1,797 1,987 34.9% 36.1% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 1,272 1,415 24.7% 25.7% 

Unassisted with No Problems 776 767 15.1% 13.9% 

Assisted 1,302 1,337 25.3% 24.3% 

Any with Severe Problems 2,280 2,438 44.3% 44.3% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 2,164 2,342 42.0% 42.5% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 167 176 3.2% 3.2% 

Rent Burden Only a

 1,976 2,108 38.4% 38.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 1,620 1,852 31.5% 33.6% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 1,419 1,657 27.6% 30.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 205 237 4.0% 4.3% 

Crowded Housing 197 225 3.8% 4.1% 

Rent Burden Only 1,227 1,425 23.8% 25.9% 

Any with No Problems 1,247 1,216 24.2% 22.1% 

—74—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

2001 2003 2001 2003 

Non-metropolitan (1000) 2,470 2,685 100.00% 100.00% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 699 657 28.3% 24.5% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 590 720 23.9% 26.8% 

Unassisted with No Problems 420 486 17.0% 18.1% 

Assisted 761 823 30.8% 30.7% 

Any with Severe Problems 888 848 36.0% 31.6% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 820 812 33.2% 30.2% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 108 65 4.4% 2.4% 

Rent Burden Only a

 688 709 27.9% 26.4% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 808 996 32.7% 37.1% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 651 850 26.4% 31.7% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 170 200 6.9% 7.4% 

Crowded Housing 104 63 4.2% 2.3% 

Rent Burden Only 547 748 22.1% 27.9% 

Any with No Problems 773 841 31.3% 31.3% 

U.S. Total (1000) 14,903 15,658 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with Severe Problems 5,014 5,176 33.6% 33.1% 

Unassisted with non-Severe Problems Only 3,631 4,004 24.4% 25.6% 

Unassisted with No Problems 2,024 2,222 13.6% 14.2% 

Assisted 4,235 4,256 28.4% 27.2% 

Any with Severe Problems 6,439 6,480 43.2% 41.4% 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 6,023 6,105 40.4% 39.0% 

Severely Inadequate Housing 680 615 4.6% 3.9% 

Rent Burden Only a

 5,244 5,376 35.2% 34.3% 

Any with non-Severe Problems Only 4,838 5,394 32.5% 34.4% 

Rent Burden 30–50% of Income 4,069 4,722 27.3% 30.2% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 853 839 5.7% 5.4% 

Crowded Housing 628 619 4.2% 4.0% 

Rent Burden Only 3,433 4,014 23.0% 25.6% 

Any with No Problems 3,626 3,784 24.3% 24.2% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem.

—75—
Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units, 

by Affordability of Rent and Income of Occupants, 2003 

Households (thousands) by Unit Affordability Category 

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

Relative Income of 

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

Extremely Low Income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 845 1,490 1,197 1,533 1,664 1,109 603 289 81 71 61 134 9,077 

Very Low Income 

(30-50%) 255 351 590 1,330 1,632 1,165 588 325 86 93 62 104 6,581 

Low Income 

(50-80%) 319 269 371 1,165 1,676 1,612 914 510 182 145 90 207 7,460 

Middle Income 

(>80%) 324 303 320 818 1,656 2,068 1,632 1,221 571 431 308 844 10,496 

Total 1,744 2,413 2,478 4,846 6,629 5,954 3,737 2,345 920 740 521 1,289 33,614 

Vacant units for rent 147 91 226 569 820 727 451 303 159 99 86 285 3,963 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Surveys 

—76—
Data on Housing Prob l ems 

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them, 

by Relative Income, 1985–2003 

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001c

 2003 

Renter Households 

(1000) 32,280 32,724 33,767 33,351 33,472 34,150 34,000 34,007 34,042 33,614 

Extremely Low Income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 8,147 7,488 7,890 8,392 8,761 8,637 9,215 8,513 8,739 9,077 

Very Low Income 

(30-50%) 5,148 5,444 5,429 5,770 5,995 5,897 5,889 6,243 6,315 6,581 

Low Income 

(50-80%) 6,452 6,650 6,903 6,933 6,383 7,205 6,591 7,270 7,251 7,460 

Middle Income 

(>80%) 12,534 13,141 13,546 12,256 12,334 12,411 12,305 11,981 11,737 10,496 

Affordable Units a 

(1000) 35,147 35,970 36,562 36,232 36,361 36,924 37,186 37,018 37,197 37,577 

Extremely Low Income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 6,194 6,268 7,090 7,160 7,033 6,633 6,937 6,683 6,870 7,098 

Very Low Income 

(30-50%) 9,362 9,289 10,052 10,693 10,340 9,933 10,826 12,089 12,366 12,863 

Low Income 

(50-80%) 14,003 14,391 13,823 13,880 14,284 15,389 15,012 14,222 13,634 13,518 

Middle Income 

(>80%) 5,588 6,022 5,597 4,499 4,704 4,969 4,411 4,023 4,328 4,099 

Affordable and 

Available Units b 

(1000) 35,147 35,970 36,562 36,232 36,361 36,924 37,186 37,018 37,197 37,577 

Extremely Low Income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 3,500 3,318 3,866 4,104 4,074 3,790 3,901 3,573 3,803 3,996 

Very Low Income 

(30-50%) 6,459 6,462 6,779 7,231 7,230 6,799 7,304 7,905 8,132 8,744 

Low Income 

(50-80%) 10,687 10,830 10,545 10,947 10,994 12,026 11,882 11,841 11,665 12,396 

Middle Income 

(>80%) 14,500 15,361 15,372 13,949 14,063 14,310 14,100 13,700 13,597 12,441 

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

a

 Affordable units are rental units, whether vacant or occupied, that rent for no more than 30 percent of specified income levels 

(relative to the HUD-adjusted area median family income). 

b

 Affordable and available units are rental units that are affordable as described above, and also either currently available for rent or 

already occupied by a household with the specified income level. 

c

 2001 estimates are based on 1990 Census weights rather than the 2000 weights used elsewhere in this report. 

—77—
Appendix B. Concepts and Methodology 

Used to Estimate Worst Case Needs 

To accurately estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from 

American Housing Survey (AHS) data, it is essential to determine whether 

household incomes fall below HUD’s official very-low-income limits 

(50 percent of HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI, also 

termed AMI)), whether a household already receives housing assistance, 

and whether an unassisted income-eligible household has one or more of 

the priority problems that formerly conferred preference in tenant selection 

for assistance (rent burdens exceeding 50 percent of income, substandard 

housing, or being involuntarily displaced). 

This appendix discusses the essential concepts and methods used to 

produce estimates and tabulations of worst case needs using 2001 and 2003 

AHS microdata. The discussion also highlights limitations of the data and 

issues relating to the consistency of estimates in this report with those in 

previous reports on worst case needs. 

Household and Family Types 

Family—The “families” eligible for HUD rental assistance programs have 

traditionally included households with relatives, households with children, 

elderly single persons age 62 or older, and single persons with disabilities. 

The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 

broadened the statutory definition of “family” in a way that makes all 

households eligible, including households comprising only nonelderly 

singles living alone or with other unrelated singles. In this report, however, 

the term “family” refers only to “family households” in which one or more 

persons in the household are related to the householder by birth, marriage, 

or adoption. 

Families with children—Households with a child under age 18 present. 

Elderly—Household in which the householder or spouse is age 62 or older, 

and no children are present. 

Other families—Households with a nonelderly householder and no 

children in which at least one person is related to the householder by birth, 

marriage, or adoption; or with subfamilies whose members are related to 

each other by birth, marriage, or adoption. 

Nonfamily households—Households with a single nonelderly person 

living alone or only with non-relatives. 

Households having adult members with disabilities—This category 

conceptually ought to include all nonelderly households with adults with 

significant physical or mental disabilities. Unfortunately, no available data 

source counts these households perfectly. The AHS proxy used in previous 

—78—
Concepts and Method ology 

reports was an underestimate because it counted only non-elderly single 

persons living alone or with non-relatives who report receiving 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) income. 

Based on research with the 1995 AHS supplement on physical disabilities, 

this report uses an expanded proxy. HUD program data suggest that this 

expanded proxy likewise undercounts disabled households, as the program 

data show appreciably more households (without children) having members 

with disabilities receiving rental assistance.

35 These issues are discussed 

extensively in the previous worst case needs report (HUD 2003, A-46). The 

SIPP data presented in Chapter 3 of this report measure disability directly, 

and estimates of non-elderly households with disabilities produced with the 

SIPP data are similar to estimates produced with the AHS. 

Housing Problems 

Rent or cost burden—A ratio between housing costs (including utilities) 

and household income that exceeds 30 percent, which is a conventional 

standard for housing affordability. To the extent that respondents 

underreport total income, the AHS estimates may overcount the number of 

households with cost burden. A “severe” cost burden exceeds 50 percent of 

reported income. A “moderate” cost burden exceeds 30 percent but is less 

than or equal to 50 percent of reported income. Cost burdens only qualify 

as potential worst case needs if they are severe rent burdens. 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 1984.36 Severe inadequacies 

constitute potential worst case needs but moderate inadequacies do not. 

Briefly, a unit is defined as having severe physical inadequacies if it has 

any one of the following five problems: 

• Plumbing. Lacking piped hot water or a flush toilet or lacking both 

bathtub and shower, all for the exclusive use of the unit. 

35 Social Security Administration (SSA) data on SSI recipients who are blind or have other 

disabilities provide a basis for making more complete estimates of the number of very-lowincome renters with SSI income who receive HUD assistance or have a severe rent burden. 

But even the SSA data are incomplete because they exclude very-low-income persons with 

disabilities who have incomes above SSI cutoffs. HUD (2001) estimated that 1.1 million 

worst case households included persons with disabilities. This estimate was made by 

increasing the AHS expanded proxy estimates to account for both known sources of 

undercount. 

36 The AHS rates housing units using a three-level measure: adequate, moderately 

inadequate, and severely inadequate. The questions underlying definitions of inadequate 

housing were changed in the 1997 AHS questionnaire to improve accuracy. For detail, see 

the entry for the variable ZADEQ in the Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public 

Use File: 1997 and Later. The most recent version is available for download at 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html. 

—79—
• Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold last winter for 24 hours or 

more, or three times for at least six hours each, due to broken-down 

heating equipment. 

• Electrical. Having no electricity or having all of the following three 

electrical problems: exposed wiring, a room with no working wall 

outlet, and three blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the last 

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 a square foot of peeling 

paint or plaster, or rats in the last 90 days. 

• Hallways. Having all of the following four problems in public areas: no 

working light fixtures, loose or missing steps, loose or missing railings, 

and no elevator. 

A unit has moderate inadequacies if it has any of the following five 

problems, but none of the severe problems: 

• Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously at least three 

times in the last three months for at least three hours each time. 

• Heating. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters as the main 

source of heat (because these heaters may produce unsafe fumes and 

unhealthy levels of moisture). 

• Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems mentioned under 

severe inadequacies. 

• Hallways. Having any three of the four hallway problems mentioned 

under severe inadequacies. 

• Kitchen. Lacking a sink, range, or refrigerator for the exclusive use of 

the unit. 

Overcrowding—The condition of having more than one person per room 

in a residence. Overcrowding is not counted as a severe problem that 

constitutes a potential worst case need. 

“Priority” problems—Problems qualifying for federal preference in 

admission to assisted housing programs between 1988 and 1996: paying 

more than one-half of income for rent (severe rent burden), living in 

severely substandard housing (including being homeless or in a homeless 

shelter), or being involuntarily displaced. Because the AHS sample tracks 

housing units and thus cannot count the homeless, AHS estimates of 

priority problems are limited to the two severe problems described above: 

severe rent burdens greater than 50 percent of income or severe physical 

problems. 

It should be noted that because the primary intention conventionally has 

been to estimate the number of unassisted very-low-income renters with 

—80—
Concepts and Method ology 

priority problems, a number of tables in Appendix A classify households 

who have moderate problems in combination with severe problems as 

having severe problems. 

Income 

Income sources—Income means gross income reported by AHS 

respondents for the 12 months preceding the interview. It includes amounts 

reported for wage and salary income, net self-employment income, Social 

Security or railroad retirement income, public assistance or welfare 

payments, and all other money income, prior to deductions for taxes or any 

other purpose. Imputed income from equity is not included as income in 

this report. Following HUD rules for determining income eligibility for 

HUD programs, the earnings of teenagers aged 17 years and younger are 

not counted as income for this report. 

Comparison to independent sources of data on total household income in 

1983 suggests that AHS respondents underreport income by some 10 to 

15 percent, with income from interest and dividends most likely to be 

underreported. Susin (2003) also found, in a comparison of the 1999 AHS 

with the Current Population Survey, that average household income is 

9 percent lower, family earnings are about the same, and non-wage income 

is 32 percent lower in the AHS. 

Supplemental and in-kind income sources—Beginning with the 1999 

AHS, poorer renters with high rent burdens were asked several new 

questions about whether persons outside the household contributed to 

household expenses such as rent, food, and child care. The supplemental 

questions were asked of assisted renters who paid more than 35 percent of 

their reported income for rent, and of unassisted renters with household 

income below $10,000 who paid more than 50 percent of their income for 

rent. 

When they were asked these additional questions at the end of the 

interview, a small number of renters corrected their earlier income and/or 

rent responses in the 1999 AHS. Analysis by the Census Bureau shows that 

respondents representing at most 250,000 unassisted very-low-income 

renters changed either their income or rent responses in ways that would 

tend to reduce their rent burden. Although the revised responses should 

provide more accurate estimates of worst case needs, the results would not 

be directly comparable to earlier worst case estimates. The previous worst 

case needs report (HUD 2003) assumed that all of the 250,000 renters 

changing their responses in 1999 would otherwise have had severe rent 

burdens. The estimates in this report likewise are based on original rather 

than revised survey responses. 

Family income—Reported income from all sources for the householder 

(the first household member 18 years or older who is listed as an owner or 

—81—
renter of the housing unit) and other household members related to the 

householder. 

Household income—Reported income from all sources for all household 

members 18 or older. 

Income Categories 

HUD-adjusted area median family income (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 the area median family income, as adjusted by HUD.

37 

It should be noted that income limits are based on median family income, 

not median household income. Each base income cutoff is assumed to 

apply to a household of four, and official income limits are further adjusted 

by household size: one person, 70 percent of base; two persons, 80 percent; 

three persons, 90 percent; five persons, 108 percent; six persons, 

116 percent; and so on. 

Statutory adjustments to official income limits in 1999 included upper caps 

and lower floors for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to 

income and, for each nonmetropolitan county, a lower floor equal to its 

state’s nonmetropolitan average. These statutory adjustments do not apply 

for 2001 and 2003. 

Income cutoffs for 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 to area income limits. Very-low- and lowincome cutoffs for a household of four are defined for each unit of 

geography identified on the AHS national microdata tapes. 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, weighting by 

population based on the decennial census. 

Because developing estimates of official income limits for the geography 

identified on the AHS microdata is time-consuming, HUD has prepared 

income limits to use with AHS geography only for four years: 1978, 1986, 

1995, and 2003.38 AHS estimates for other years have used these limits 

adjusted for inflation rather than the official income limits. 

37 See HUD (2005b) for a description of current adjustments. 

38 For each of these years, HUD revised income limits for all locations in the country based 

on income data from the most recent decennial Census of Population and Housing. 

—82—
Concepts and Method ology 

Income cutoffs used to produce 2001 estimates in this report are based on 

1995 income limits, weighted by 1990 census data, and adjusted for 

inflation by the CPI-U as well by the factor by which average income 

exceeded inflation over this period, 1.1238. Income cutoffs used for 2003 

estimates are based on 2003 official income limits weighted by 2000 census 

data. 

Categorizing households by income—For this report, when households 

are categorized using the very-low- and low-income cutoffs, the cutoffs are 

adjusted for household size using the same adjustment factors used by 

HUD programs. 

In addition, households reporting negative income are attributed incomes 

just above the area median income if their monthly housing costs exceed 

the Fair Market Rent and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. 

The justification for imputing higher incomes is that many households in 

this situation live in housing with amenities such as dining rooms, 

balconies, and off-the-street parking and thus may be reporting temporary 

accounting losses. 

For housing needs estimates using AHS data since 1985, HUD has 

classified households with incomes above median income by comparing 

their income to the actual median family income for the location, rather 

than to 80 percent of the low-income cutoff, as was the only approach 

possible for estimates made through 1983. 

• Extremely low income—Income not in excess of 30 percent of 

HAMFI. In 2003, 15 percent of AHS households reported income 

below 30 percent of HAMFI. 

• Very low income—Income not in excess of 50 percent of HAMFI. 

Very low income thus includes extremely low income, although the 

term sometimes is used loosely in specific contexts, such as mismatch 

analysis, to mean incomes between 30 and 50 percent of HAMFI. In 

2003, 28 percent of AHS households reported income below the verylow-income cutoffs. 

• Low income—Reported income not in excess of 80 percent of HAMFI 

or, if lower, the national median family income. In 2003, 47 percent of 

AHS households reported incomes that fell below the low-income 

cutoffs. 

• Poor—Household income below the national poverty cutoffs for the 

United States for that household size. (As discussed in Appendix A of 

the Census Bureau’s AHS publications, AHS poverty estimates differ 

from official poverty estimates made from the Current Population 

Survey. AHS poverty estimates are based on income of households 

rather than income of families or individuals, and AHS income 

questions are much less detailed and refer to income during the past 

12 months rather than a fixed period.) The poverty cutoff for a family 

—83—
of four approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. In 2003, 49 percent of 

very-low-income households and 79 percent of extremely-low-income 

households were poor. 

• Middle income—For this report, incomes above 80 percent and below 

120 percent of HAMFI. In 2003, 19 percent of AHS households were 

in this category. 

• Upper income—For this report, households with income above 

120 percent of HAMFI. In 2003, 34 percent of households were in this 

category. 

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 earlier. 

After careful review, HUD and the Census Bureau adopted the following 

procedure to identify assisted units in a way that produces results that are 

more comparable to pre-1997 data. 

• Units are “owned by a public housing authority” if the respondent 

answers yes to “Is the building owned by a public housing authority?” 

• Units receive “government subsidy” if the respondent was assigned to 

that unit or answers yes that “a public housing authority, or some 

similar agency, [gave them] a certificate or voucher to help pay the rent 

for the unit.” 

• Units are identified as “other, income verification” units if the 

respondent answers yes to “As part of your rental agreement do you 

need to answer questions about your income whenever your lease is up 

for renewal?” and, as a follow-up says that they report their income to 

either “a building manager or landlord” or “a public housing authority 

or a state or local housing agency.” 

• Units are included if the respondent answers “yes” to “Does the state or 

local government pay some of the cost of the unit?” 

• Units are included if the respondent answers yes to one of the three 

questions: “Is the building owned by a public housing authority? Does 

the federal government pay some of the cost of the unit? Do the people 

living here have to report the household’s income to someone every 

year so they can set the rent?” 

Location 

Metropolitan Statistical Area—From 1973 to 1983, the definitions of 

metropolitan location in Annual Housing Survey data corresponded to the 

243 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 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. 

—84—
Concepts and Method ology 

Region—The four census regions are the Northeast, Midwest, South, and 

West. 

Longitudinal Analysis 

This worst case report includes, for the first time, an exploratory, 

longitudinal analysis that assesses whether very-low-income renters who 

have severe rent burdens in one year remain in similar status a year later. 

The analysis, presented in Chapter 3, uses data from the Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP). 

The SIPP design does not accurately assign or track household rent burden 

over time. Rent and income are tracked at the level of the individual, who 

may or may not be a part of the same household in both years. Therefore, 

rather than using “households” as the unit of analysis, the longitudinal 

analysis in Chapter 3 focuses on persons who were in the data file and were 

heads of households in both years. Persons were assigned to income 

categories on the basis of their incomes during the first year. 

Mismatch of Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental 

Housing 

Mismatch—The discrepancy between the number of rental units needed by 

renters of various income categories and the number provided by the 

market that are affordable at those income levels. 

Affordability—Several federal rental programs define “affordable” rents as 

those requiring not more than 30 percent of an income cutoff defined in 

relation to HAMFI. Under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), 

for example, housing units with rents up to (30 percent of) 60 percent of 

HAMFI qualify as affordable and eligible for the credit. 

This report generalizes the approach developed to define LIHTC maximum 

rents for units of different size to define three categories of affordability 

(ELI, VLI, and LI) based on the incomes that are sufficient for the rents: at 

or below 30 percent of HAMFI, above 30 and up to 50 percent of HAMFI, 

and above 50 percent of HAMFI. Gross rents for each unit, including 

payments for utilities, are compared to 30 percent of HUD’s 30 percent and 

50 percent of HAMFI income limits. 

The income limits used to define rent affordability are adjusted for number 

of bedrooms using the formula codified at U.S.C. 42(g)(2)(C): no 

bedrooms, 70 percent of base; one bedroom, 75 percent; two bedrooms, 

90 percent; three bedrooms, 104 percent; four bedrooms, 116 percent, plus 

12 percent of base for every additional bedroom.39 This formula assumes 

that an efficiency houses 1 person, a one-bedroom unit houses 1.5 persons, 

and each additional bedroom houses another 1.5 persons. For vacant units, 

39 Note that this adjustment procedure is similar to, but distinct from, the adjustment of 

income limits described under Income Categories. 

—85—
the costs of any utilities that would be paid by an occupant were allocated 

using a hot deck technique based on a matrix of structure type, AHS 

climate code, and eight categories of gross rent. 

Three measures of affordability— Three measures are used in Chapter 4 

to analyze the sufficiency of the rental housing stock in relation to 

household incomes. 

• Affordability measures the extent to which there are enough rental 

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

can afford (based on the 30 percent of income standard). Affordability 

is the broadest measure of housing stock sufficiency, addressing 

whether there are sufficient housing units if allocated solely on the 

basis of cost. The affordable stock includes both vacant and occupied 

units. 

• Availability measures the extent to which affordable rental housing 

units are available to households within a particular income range. 

Some households choose to spend less than 30 percent of their incomes 

on rent, occupying housing that is affordable to households of lower 

income. These units are thus not available to the lower-income 

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

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

income or less or 2) vacant. 

The availability measure removes units from consideration if they 

have artificially low rents because they are occupied as a benefit of 

employment (for example, by caretakers) or because they are owned 

by relatives or friends of the occupants. The 2003 AHS data indicate 

that 2.2 million renter households (6.6 percent) occupied their units 

while paying no rent. The AHS does not provide estimates of the 

number of households paying a positive but below-market rent 

because of employment or other reasons. 

• Adequacy extends the concept of availability by considering whether 

sufficient rental units are physically adequate as well as available and 

affordable. 

Categorizing rental units by affordability and households by income— 

For the analysis of mismatches between affordability and income in 

Chapter 4, household incomes and housing unit rents were compared to 

2003 income limits (for income and rent categories up to and including 

80 percent of HAMFI) and to the actual median family incomes (for 

categories above 80 percent of HAMFI). As in the analysis of household 

income, households reporting negative income were redefined as having 

incomes just above median income if their monthly housing costs were 

above the FMR and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. 

This approach provides more accurate estimates than in previous reports of 

the numbers of housing units qualifying as affordable under rules such as 

—86—
Concepts and Method ology 

those regulating the HOME and low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC). 

For the LIHTC, housing that is affordable to incomes at 60 percent of 

median income must have rents that are no more than 30 percent of 120 

percent of HUD’s applicable VLI limits (with appropriate adjustments for 

number of bedrooms). For ease of calculation, analyses of shortages of 

affordable housing in previous worst case reports had compared income 

and rents to multiples of HAMFI. However, the statutory adjustments made 

in deriving HUD’s official VLI limits on average make the actual VLI 

limits higher than “50 percent” of median income. Therefore, the previous 

data tended to undercount both the number of renters and the number of 

units defined as affordable to them. 

For purposes of mismatch analysis, units with “no cash rent” reported are 

categorized solely on the basis of utility costs. Utility costs are allocated to 

vacant units through “hot-deck” imputation based on units that are 

comparable on the basis of cost, number of units, region, and tenure. 

Race and Ethnicity 

For 2003, the American Housing Survey used revised Census Bureau 

categories of race and ethnicity that are not directly comparable with the 

2001 and earlier AHS. Survey respondents in 2003 were allowed to select 

more than one racial group, causing slight but significant decreases in the 

size of previously monolithic categories. 

Worst Case Needs for Rental Assistance 

Unassisted very-low-income renters with the priority housing problems that 

formerly gave them preference for admission to federal rental assistance 

programs. Because AHS questions do not distinguish federal from state or 

local assistance, assisted renters include those with state or local assistance. 

Weighting the AHS 

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. The AHS weights used in this report for 2001 and 2003 AHS data 

are based on the 2000 Census of Housing, which the Census Bureau began 

using for weighting the AHS in 2003. The Bureau determines 2000-based 

AHS weights from independent estimates (control totals) based on the 

Census 2000 with an estimate of change since then.40 Estimates of worst 

case needs in 2001 in this report differ from those that HUD previously 

40 For information on weighting, see “American Housing Survey for the United States: 

2003,” Series H150/03, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs01_2000wts/ahs01_2000wts.html. 

—87—
published because they were based on 1990 Census weights (see HUD 

2003).41 

41 In addition to different weights, HUD has determined that 2001 estimates of worst case 

needs published in the 2003 report also were affected by failure to exclude, consistent with 

historical practice, households with zero or negative incomes. 

—88—
Concepts and Method ology 

Appendix C. Worst Case Needs Methodology 

Compared to Recent Joint Center for Housing 

Studies Report 

A recent report issued by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing 

Studies (Joint Center), The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2005 explored 

issues similar to those discussed in this report. 

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, the Joint Center Report contains a 

finding that would seem to be in conflict with the finding in this report that 

the number of households facing worst case needs did not increase by a 

statistically significant amount between 2001 and 2003. Specifically, the 

Joint Center report finds that “the number of severely cost-burdened 

households in the bottom income quartile increased by 1.5 million in 2000-

3, raising the share with such steep burdens to 44 percent.” 

This Appendix discusses some of the possible reasons for differences 

between estimates contained in the Joint Center report and the estimates 

provided in this report. 

Part I – Methodology 

As discussed in Chapter 1 and Appendix A of this report, HUD’s Worst 

Case Needs analysis is based on a long-standing methodology using set 

definitions and terms. The methodology used in HUD’s worst case needs 

estimates differs from that used in the Joint Center’s report in several 

important respects. The differences should be considered by the reader 

when making comparisons between the two. 

WCN focuses on unassisted renter households that meet HUD’s very-low 

income definition. These households can have worst case needs if either 

1) they pay more than half of their income for rent; or 2) they live in 

severely inadequate housing. The Joint Center report focused only on 

severe housing cost burden – whether households in this larger group paid 

more than half their income for housing costs – and considered both renters 

and homeowners as well as households receiving any form of government 

housing assistance. 

Comparing estimates from the two reports 

The Joint Center report found that, “the number of severely cost-burdened 

households in the bottom income quartile increased by 1.5 million in 2000-

3.” This is in contrast to the finding in this report that there was not a 

statistically significant increase in worst case needs between 2001 to 2003. 

Some of the difference can be explained by the different methodologies 

used in each report. 

—89—
Excluding Homeowners - Narrows Difference by 555,000 

The Joint Center analysis includes homeowners while the analysis in this 

report focuses solely on renters. The Joint Center report found that the 

number of households in the lowest income quartile with severe cost 

burdens increased from 10,510,000 (out of 26,176,000 in this income 

category) in 2000 to 12,095,000 (out of 27,107,000). Of this 1,575,000 

increase, 1,029,000 were renter households and 555,000 were owners. 

Exhibit C-1 focuses solely on renter households showing estimates of 

severe rent burden by income group drawn from data from the American 

Community Survey. 

Exhibit C-1. American Community Survey Estimates of 


Severe Rent Burden 2000, 2001 and 2003 


Renters, 

by Income 

Group 2000 2001 2003 Change 2001- 2003 

Pct Change 

2001-2003 

Sev All Sev All Sev All Sev All Sev All 

Burden Burden Burden Burden Burden 

Bottom 6,204 11,563 6,552 12,079 7,049 12,444 497 365 7.6% 3.0% 

Quintile 

Incidence 53.6% 54.2% 56.6% 2.4% 

Bottom 6,497 13,994 6,901 14,569 7,536 15,028 625 459 9.1% 3.2% 

Quartile 

Incidence 46.4% 47.4% 50.1% 2.7% 

Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) tabulations of the 

2001 and 2003 American Community Survey and the 2000 Census 

Supplemental Survey. Counts of households are in 1,000’s. 2000 and 

2003 estimates are from the JCHS Report, State of the Nation’s 

Housing: 2005 (see Table A-11); and 2001 estimates provided by 

JCHS to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research by 

request. Income quartiles and quintiles are calculated based on 

incomes of all households, including owners and renters. As a result, 

42 percent of renters are in the bottom income quartile and 35 percent 

of renters are in the bottom quintile income groups in the 2003 ACS. 

Households reporting zero and negative incomes are included in the 

lowest income groups and are assumed to have severe housing cost 

burdens. 

Timeframe: 2000-2003 vs. 2001-2003 - Narrows Difference by 404,000 

As shown in Exhibit C-1, some of the increase reported by the Joint Center 

report occurred in the 2000-2001 period. The worst case needs estimate did 

not cover the 2000-2001 period because the AHS is conducted every two 

years. Exhibit C-1 shows that a large part of the reported increase in severe 

cost burdens based on the ACS occurred in the 2000-2001 time period – an 

—90—
Concepts and Method ology 

increase of 404,000 households in the lowest income quartile (from 

6,497,000 to 6,901,000) with such cost burdens. In the remaining 2001-

2003 period, there was an increase of 635,000 renter households with 

severe burdens, from 6,901,000 to 7,536,000 households. 

Exhibit C-2. American Housing Survey Estimates of 


Severe Rent Burden, 2001 and 2003 


Renters, 

by Income 

Group 2001 2003 Change 

2001-2003 

Pct Change 

2001-2003 

Sev 

Burden 

All Sev 

Burden 

All Sev 

Burden 

All Sev 

Burden 

All 

AHS, 

Incomes >0 

Bottom 

Quintile 

Incidence 

5,277 

55.2% 

9,559 5,350 

53.4% 

10,020 73 

-1.8% 

461 1.4% 4.8% 

Bottom 

Quartile 

Incidence 

5,766 

47.5% 

12,130 5,793 

46.7% 

12,416 27 

-0.8% 

286 0.5% 2.4% 

Very Low 

Income 

6,022 14,903 6,105 15,658 83 755 1.4% 5.1% 

Incidence 40.4% 39.0% -1.4% 

AHS, 

including 

zero/neg 

Bottom 

Quintile 

Incidence 

6,510 

60.2% 

10,816 6,477 

58.0% 

11,173 -33 

-2.2% 

357 -0.5% 3.3% 

Bottom 

Quartile 

Incidence 

7,000 

52.3% 

13,387 6,921 

51.0% 

13,569 -79 

-1.3% 

182 -1.1% 1.4% 

Zero and Negative Incomes 

The Joint Center estimates include households reporting zero and negative 

incomes and assumes they are in the lowest income categories and have 

severe housing cost burdens. This WCN report, using a methodology 

consistent with past reports, does not include households reporting zero and 

negative incomes in the estimate of worst case needs. This is in part based 

on a policy assumption that many such families may be reporting one-time 

losses (from small businesses for example) and as such may be more likely 

to be considered as higher income (than the very-low income adjusted 

family income measure). 

While the data are not available to exclude zero and negative incomes from 

the ACS (to develop a more comparable estimate to the WCN 

—91—
methodology), these households can be added to the WCN estimate based 

on data from the AHS. The result is shown in Exhibit C-2 under the 

subheading, “AHS, including zero/neg” with a larger number of households 

with severe rent burdens in both years but still no statistically significant 

trend (upward or downward) from 2001 to 2003. This adjustment does not 

seem to reconcile the discrepancy in trends between the two reports, 

although it may reduce single-year “point in time” differences between the 

two estimates. It is nonetheless important to keep in mind this specific 

difference in the approach used in each report. 

Reconciling Methodological Differences - Conclusion 

Much of the difference between the estimates from the Joint Center report 

and this report can be reconciled after taking into account the different 

methodological approaches in the two reports. Nonetheless, even after 

reconciling the major differences, the Joint Center ACS-based estimates 

continue to show an upward trend in housing cost burdens among lowerincome renter households from 2001 to 2003, while this report’s AHSbased estimates show no statistically significant increase. Comparing the 

underlying differences between the ACS and AHS may yield further light 

on the reasons for this difference. 

Part II – Data Sources (Survey Methodologies) 

The remaining difference in housing cost trends between the two reports 

may be the result of differences in the surveys used in each report - the 

American Housing Survey and the American Community Survey. 

American Community Survey. The survey is the largest household survey 

in the United States (800,000 housing units per year during the test phase). 

Like the decennial census long form it is designed to replace, the ACS 

provides information on money income and poverty, as well as a range of 

other social and economic indicators. 

American Housing Survey. The American Housing Survey (AHS) 

collects data on the Nation's housing, including apartments, single-family 

homes, mobile homes, vacant housing units, household characteristics, 

income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment and 

fuels, size of housing unit, and recent movers. National data are collected in 

odd numbered years, and data for each of 47 selected Metropolitan Areas 

are collected currently about every six years. The national sample surveys 

an average of 55,000 housing units. Each metropolitan area sample surveys 

4,100 or more housing units. The survey is conducted by the Bureau of the 

Census for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Current Population Survey. Data from the Current Population Survey 

(CPS) are included in Exhibit C-3 for purposes of comparison with the 

AHS and ACS data from 2003. The CPS is the primary source of 

information on the labor force characteristics of the U.S. population. The 

—92—
Concepts and Method ology 

CPS produces national estimates for employment, unemployment, 

earnings, hours of work, and other indicators. In addition, the CPS, 

augmented by the Housing Vacancy Survey is used to estimate vacancy 

rates and homeownership rates. The CPS produces estimates for a variety 

of demographic characteristics including age, sex, race, marital status, and 

educational attainment. The CPS is a monthly survey of about 50,000 

households conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. The survey has been conducted for more than 50 years. 

Exhibit C-3. Comparison of AHS, ACS and CPS 


for Selected Criteria – 2003 


AHS ACS CPS 

Total Occupied Units 105,842,000 108,430,000 105,560,000 

Owners 72,238,000 72,423,984 72,054,000 

Renters 33,604,000 36,004,362 33,506,000 

Vacant Units 14,935,000 12,456,661 15,274,000 

Exhibit C-3 shows a few housing unit estimates from the AHS, ACS and 

CPS data. The ACS estimates about 2.4 million more renter households 

nationwide than the AHS – 36.0 million in the ACS versus 33.6 million in 

the AHS. The ACS counts 2.4 million fewer vacant units than the AHS – 

12.5 million vacant units in the ACS versus 14.9 million vacant units in the 

AHS. The AHS and CPS counts are nearly identical for most categories. 

In addition to these differences, there are numerous other reasons why 

estimates of the same group – severely burdened renters in the lowest 

quintile of income – could differ between the two surveys: 

• The ACS and the AHS are different probability samples and have 

differences in the way they are weighted, thus the two samples 

could give different results even for the same population. 

• The ACS is a fairly new survey. As noted by the Bureau, the 2000 

ACS or Census 2000 Supplemental Survey (C2SS) is characterized 

as “... an operational feasibility test of collecting census long form 

data.... It is part of the development program....” The AHS has 

been conducted for the past 32 years since 1973. It is a mature and 

settled survey, and the Worst Case Needs methodology has also 

been used for decades. During those decades the methods have 

been scrutinized and subjected to review by critics. 

• The AHS 2001 survey was conducted about three months later, on 

average, than the ACS. As a result 2001 to 2003 differences cover 

24 months in the ACS and only 21 months in the AHS (thus the 

time period used to measure change is somewhat longer in the Joint 

Center report). 

—93—
• Survey methods are different. ACS is a self-administered, mail-out 

questionnaire with telephone follow-up of all mail nonrespondents, and in-person interview follow-up of a sample of 

telephone non-respondents and vacant units. All AHS data is 

collected by trained interviewers, either in person or by telephone 

for households previously interviewed. 

• The ACS and the AHS may have a different cutoff for classifying 

units as group quarters and thus excluded from the universe of 

housing units. The AHS uses eight or fewer unrelated individuals 

as the cut off. The ACS has no such cutoffs and would include 

large non-family households such as might be found near colleges 

and universities. 

• The ACS and AHS have dealt with congregate housing in different 

ways. Until 2004, living arrangements that included congregate 

meals were not considered to be housing units in the AHS. The 

ACS does include these units. The AHS sample is now being 

revised to include such living arrangements that are common for 

senior housing. The Census Bureau’s Survey of Construction is 

also being changed to include such units. 

• The AHS also returns to the same housing units each survey year, 

and uses previous responses to improve the current year responses 

where possible and feasible. 

• Income questions are different. The ACS collects income data for 

each adult in the household. As a result, the ACS has additional 

questions compared with the AHS. The AHS collects earnings 

data for each adult in the household but collects other income as 

totals for the family. The AHS has nine categories of non-wage 

income and the ACS has seven categories. 

• Rent and utility questions are different. The ACS asks for last 

month’s cost for electricity and gas and the last year’s cost for 

water/sewer and oil/coal/kerosene/wood. The AHS asks for utility 

data for four specific months which are then used with Department 

of Energy data to arrive at annual utility costs. the AHS uses five 

questions and also sends the respondent a letter in advance asking 

them to locate utility bills for January, April, August and 

December. 

Conclusion 

Much of the difference between the finding in the Joint Center report 

showing an increase in severe housing cost burden and this report’s finding 

of no statistically significant increase can be explained by the different 

method of analyses used in each report. The remaining difference is likely 

due to differences in survey methodology used in the American Housing 

—94—
Concepts and Method ology 

Survey and the American Community Survey. Additional examination of 

these issues may be warranted given the importance of the underlying issue. 

—95—
Appendix D. Issues of Interpretation 

Although the estimates of worst case needs are helpful in understanding the 

extent of need for housing assistance or other public interventions to help 

families meet their housing needs, there are issues to consider in this area. 

In particular, the number of households experiencing worst case needs 

should not necessarily be taken alone as a direct measure of the extent of 

need for additional housing assistance. 

First, as noted above in this report’s analysis of the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation, episodes of severe rent burden can vary widely in 

terms of duration. As the report indicates, further analysis is necessary to 

understand the dynamics of duration. Future policy discussions concerning 

affordable housing needs should consider new research on the duration of 

rent burdens. 

Second, adding to the number of public rental subsidies is only one way – 

and may not be the most efficient way in all cases – to help families who 

lack income or face other challenges to locating affordable housing that 

meets their needs. A shortage of affordable housing can be addressed by 

constructing new subsidized housing – as with Low Income Housing Tax 

Credits and other public programs – or by providing a housing subsidy to 

the household in the form a housing voucher. However, an increase in the 

number of subsidized households may not translate one for one into a 

reduction of worst case needs. For example, additional subsidies may not 

reduce worst case needs on a one for one basis as the market adjusts to new 

construction of subsidized units. Supply problems can be addressed in 

other ways – for example, by addressing local regulatory barriers to the 

development of housing. Over time, such policies can increase supply 

relative to demand and thereby keep rents lower than they would be 

otherwise. 

Third, affordability problems also can be addressed through policies 

designed to increase incomes. Lack of income can be addressed by a 

variety of public programs, other than housing assistance, aimed at helping 

families increase their opportunities for work and their earning potential. 

Some of these public interventions may be more cost-effective in some 

cases than housing assistance would be at reducing rent burdens. 

—96—
Concepts and Method ology 

Contributors 

This report was prepared under the overall supervision of Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and Research (PD&R) Darlene Williams 

and her predecessor, Dennis Shea. The following analysts contributed to 

the report: 

David Hardiman, PD&R 

Marge Martin, PD&R 

Mark Shroder, PD&R 

Barry Steffen, PD&R 

Scott Susin, Bureau of the Census 

David Vandenbroucke, PD&R 

David Yao, Computer Sciences Corporation 

—97—