é^k United states

*VW!# Department of

^^fß' Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research Report

Number 42

c

Housing of the

Rural Elderly

Gail D. Arnold
Houraig of the Rural Sderly. By Gail D. Arnold. Economic Development

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural

Development Research Report No. 42.

Abstract

The elderly, especially the rural elderly, are more likely to have housing

problems than other groups. The number of rural elderly households

increased 16 percent between 1974 and 1979 compared with an increase of

only 10 percent for all U.S. households. In 1979, 15 percent of U.S. rural

elderly heads of household lived in inadequate housing compared with 8 percent of the urban elderly. Inadequate housing has one or more of the following flaws, among others: incomplete plumbing facilities, incomplete kitchen

facilities, leaking roof, holes in walls or ceilings, and exposed wiring. In

addition, one out of five elderly homeowners in rural areas and about half

of elderly renters had trouble affording their homes.

Keywords: Rural, elderly, housing affordability, adequacy

Additional Copies of Ulis Report. «.

Can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.G. 20402. Ask for Housing of the RuroJ

Elderly (RDRR-42). Write to the above address for price information, or call

the GPO order desk at (202] 783-3238. Purchases may be charged to your

VISA, MasterCard, or GPO deposit account. Bulk discounts available.

Microfiche copies {$4.50 each) can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service. Identification Section, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. Ask for Housing of the Rural EJderJy. Enclose check

or money order, payable to NTIS. For faster service, call the NTIS order

desk at (703) 487-4780 and charge your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard,

American Express, or NTIS deposit account.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.

Washington, D.C. 20250 July 1984

III
Contents

Page

Summary v

Introduction , 1

Demographic Characteristics . ,. ., 1

Mobility and Tenure . 1

Income 2

Housing Characteristics 3

Housing Quality 4

Substandard Housing 4

Structural and Functional Flaws . . , 6

Inadequate Housing 8

Summary of Housing Quality 10

Housing Affordability 10

Homeowner Costs 10

Renter Costs 10

References 11

IV
Summary

Most elderly people in the United States live in adequate housing, but in

rural areas, 27 percent of the elderly renters and 18 percent of all the

elderly living in the South have inadequate housing. These findings are

based on 1979 Annual Housing Survey data recently analyzed by the Economic Research Service.

A major factor contributing to inadequate housing is the low incomes of the

elderly, in 1979, 29 percent of the rural elderly had incomes below the poverty level, far greater than the 10 percent for the rural nonelderly.

The number of rural elderly households increased 16 percent between 1974

and 1979 compared with an increase of only 10 percent for all U.S. households. In 1979, 15 percent of the rural elderly lived in inadequate housing

compared with 8 percent of the urban elderly.

Housing is considered inadequate if it has one or more of the following

flaws, among others: incomplete plumbing facilities, incomplete kitchen facilities, leaking roof, holes in walls or ceilings, and exposed wiring.

Other findings in this study:

• Forty-five percent of the inadequate housing units of the rural elderly

are regarded as severely inadequate, with two or more housing flaws,

• The rural South has the highest percentage (10 percent) of severely

inadequate housing, especially among renters.

• Many rural elderly have trouble affording their homes. In 1979, 20

percent of the rural elderly living in adequate housing spent more than

30 percent of their incomes for housing.

• In 1979, 83 percent of rural elderly homeowners owned their homes

free and clear, and more than half had lived 20 years or more in their

current units.

« The rural elderly live in older, smaller housing units than do the

rural nonelderly.

The majority of elderly heads of household in rural areas are white, married

males aged 65-75 years old with less than a ninth grade education.
Housing of the Rural Elderly

GaU D. Arnold

Introduction

While most elderly people (65 years old and over) in

the United States live in adequate housing, many of

those in rural areas have inadequate housing, especially those renting their homes and those living in

the South. This report presents a detailed description of the demographic and housing characteristics

of the rural elderly.

This study used the 1974 and 1979 Annual Housing

Surveys (AHS) as a data base to describe selected

households and housing characteristics. At the time

of report preparation, 1979 data were the most

recent. A brief preview of later data conducted in

March 1984 indicates little substantive change. The

AHS provides information on the number of housing

units in the United States, the characteristics of

their occupants, housing and neighborhood quality,

and other housing-related variables (10).'

The surveys were conducted by the Bureau of the

Census in cooperation with the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 1974

data on 78,000 housing units were collected by personal interviews from August to October 1974. The

1979 data on 79,000 units were collected by personal interviews from September to December 1979.

The sample of the AHS was spread over 461 sample

areas, comprising 923 counties and independent

cities with coverage in each of the 50 States and

the District of Columbia, in order to develop reliable

estimates of rural housing characteristics, rural

households were sampled at twice the rate of the

larger urban sample.^ Data presented here were

obtained by special tabulations of the AHS.

'Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited at

the end of this report.

The AHS makes the following distinction between urban and

rural housing: urban housing comprises all housing units in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside

urbanized areas. Urban housing consists more specifically of all

housing units in (1) places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs (except Alaska), and towns

(except in the New England States, New York, and Wisconsin) but

excludes those housing units in the rural portions of extended

cities; (2) unincorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more; and

(3) other territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in

urbanized areas. Housing units not classified as urban constitute

rural housing.

Demographic Characteristics

The number of rural elderly households is growing

rapidly. From 1974 to 1979, the number of U.S.

households increased 10 percent, whereas the number of rural elderly headed households increased 16

percent. The number of households with heads

ranging from 65-74 years old increased 13 percent,

while the number with heads 75 years old or older

increased 21 percent. The increase of rural elderly

headed households between 1974 and 1979 varied

considerably among the four regions» ranging from

a low of 7 percent in the North Central region to 30

percent in the West (fig= 1).

The majority of rural elderly heads of household in

1979 were white, married (wife present] males,

aged 65-75 years old, with less than a ninth grade

education (table 1). However, about 30 percent of

rural elderly heads of household were single

femaleSe There were proportionately fewer rural

male heads with each increasing age group. Of the

rural heads 65-74 years old, 68 percent were males.

This percentage decreased for those aged 75 and

over to 53 percent. At the same time, the proportion

of rural widows increased with each older age

group. Of the rural heads 65-74 years old, 30 percent were widows; in the 75-plus age group, 54

percent were widows. The higher proportion of

single female heads in the older age group reflects

the longer life expectancy of females.

Education levels of the elderly are rising. According

to 1979 data, 22 percent of heads 65-74 years old

had graduated from high school compared with 14

percent of the heads 75 or older. Although levels of

educational attainment are lower in rural than in

urban areas, the rural elderly in 1979 were better

educated than comparable age groups in 1974.

Since each younger age group is better educated,

each generation of the elderly will be better educated than the previous one.

Mobility and Tenure

Most of the rural elderly heads are longtime residents of the housing units currently occupied.

Amost half of those who were homeowners in 1979

had lived in their units 20 years or more. Only 14
Arnold

percent had lived in their current units less than 5

years. By comparison, the rural elderly renter is

highly mobile; 52 percent of the rural elderly

renters moved between 1974 and 1979.

The percentage of homeowners among the rural

elderly is higher than that among the urban elderly.

In 1979, 83 percent of the rural elderly were homeowners compared with 64 percent of the urban

elderly.3 Among the urban elderly, 32 percent were

renters compared with 11 percent of the rural

elderly.*

The distribution of rural elderly heads is consistent

with the distribution of all rural households, of

which 43 percent resided in the South in 1979. Dis-

'Excludes owners of condominiums and cooperatives.

"Excludes households which paid for rent by other than cash.

tributions among and between regions of rural

elderly owners and renters are shown in figs. 2

and 3. These distributions differ from that of the

rural elderly population in general. The proportion

of owners and renters varies within each region.

The Northeast and West have higher proportions of

renters and lower proportions of owners than do

the Southern and North Central regions.

Income

Incomes of elderly households in 1979 were less

than half those of nonelderly households. Loss of

earnings following retirement often aggravates the

economic problems of the elderly. However, the use

of current income as a measure of economic wellbeing may have overestimated the economic problems of the elderly given their accumulated wealth

[13, pp. 1-4).

Figure 1

Regional Distribution and Growth of Rural Elderly Heads of Household

West

Northeast

Top numbers refer to percentage distribution by region in 1979.

«Bottom numbers indicate percentage increase in elderly household heads from 1974 to 1979.
Housing of the Rural Elderly

Table 1—Demographic characteristics of elderly heads of household, 1979

Characteristics Rural Urban Total

Number Percent' Number Percent' Number Percent'

Total elderly heads 4.748,157 100 11,516,538 100 16,264,695 100

Race:

White

Black

Other

4,384,959

329,249

33.949

92

7

1

10,288.281

1,085.571

142,686

89

9

1

14,673,240

1,414.820

176.635

90

9

1

Highest grade of school

attended:

No school

Kindergarten-8th

9th-11th

High school graduate

College

78,530

2,365,428

763,598

894,846

645,755

2

50

16

19

14

181,856

4,171,363

1,827,164

2,948,677

2,387,478

2

36

16

26

21

260,386

6,536,791

2.590,762

3,843,523

3,033,233

2

40

16

24

19

Marital status:

Married

Single

2,506,895

2,241,262

53

47

4,819,563

6,696,975

42

58

7,326,458

8.938,237

45

55

Sex:

Male

Female

2,982,668

1,765,489

63

37

6,032,173

5,484,365

52

48

9,014,841

7,249,854

55

45

'Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding of data.

In 1979, 36 percent of the rural aged had incomes

less than $5,000; more than half had incomes less

than $7,000. In comparison, 41 percent of the nonaged had incomes above $20,000, and well over half

had incomes of $15,000 or more. The median income

for the rural aged was less than $7,000 compared

with nearly $16,000 for the rural nonaged (table 2).

Incomes differ significantly between regions and

between owners and renters. Median incomes of

rural elderly heads varied by more than $2,000

among the four regions in 1979, ranging from more

than $8,034 in the Northeast to $5,779 in the South.

Median incomes for owners were $3,325 higher

than those for renters. The owner/renter differences

in median incomes ranged from approximately

$3,900 in the Northeast to $2,900 in the South

where incomes generally were lower than

elsewhere.

Social security and railroad retirement are the most

common sources of income for the elderly. Interest

and bonds provided some income for more than half

of the households in 1979. Only 1 out of 12 elderly

rural households received any welfare or public

assistance, although 29 percent had incomes below

the poverty level. This finding is expected since

asset eligibility tests may exclude many elderly from

qualifying for assistance programs.

Housing Characteristics

Eight out of 10 rural elderly heads of household

resided in single detached units in 1979. Nine percent lived in mobile homes and 7 percent in multiple

units. The rural elderly live in smaller units than

the nonelderly. In 1979, 56 percent of rural elderly

heads lived in units with fewer than three bedrooms; 33 percent lived in units with fewer than

five rooms.

In comparison, approximately 7 out of 10 rural non=

aged lived in units with three or more bedrooms,

and more than three-fourths lived in units with five

or more rooms. This size differential may be partially related to the age of the units. The majority of

the units occupied by the rural aged were built over

30 years ago. Most of the units built prior to 1950
Arnold

*\ . .were constructed at a time when standards of

space, arrangement and storage were much lower,

and building technology was less well advanced

than it is today (4).''

The rural elderly live in slightly larger units than do

the urban elderly. In 1979, 66 percent of the rural

aged lived in units with five or more rooms, and 45

percent had three or more bedrooms as compared

with the urban elderly's 56 percent and 33 percent,

respectively,

Housmg Quality

A series of structural and functional housing Ghar=

acteristics describe the quality of housing. In addition, the adequacy of a particular housing unit

depends upon the characteristics and needs of the

occupants. Three measures of housing quality and

adequacy are used here: (Ij a simple definition of

substandard housing, (2) a listing of the structural

and functional flaws in the housing unit, and (3) the

definition of inadequate housing developed by

HUD for the report series How Well are We Housed?

(11, 12).

Substandard Housmg

A substandard housing unit is one that is crowded,

1.01 or more persons per room, or lacks complete

private plumbing facilities. Complete plumbing facilities are defined as hot and cold piped water, a

flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. The plumbing

must be inside the structure and exclusively used by

the occupants. Although crowding was not a major

problem among the elderly (due to small household

sizes) in 1979, 9 percent of all rural elderly households lived in substandard housing, largely because

of inadequate plumbing.

Figure 2

National Distribution of Rural Elderly Ownsrs/Renters

West

Northeast
Housing of the Rural Elderly

Figure 3

Distribution of Rural Elderly Households by Tenure Within Each Region

West

Northeast

* Rent includes only those households which paid cash for rent.

• Other includes cooperatives, condominiums, and households that did not pay cash for rent.

Table 2—Rural income distribution by age category of head of household, 1979

Income levels Nonaged Aged Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Less than $5,000

$5,000-$6.999

$7,000-$9,999

$10,000-$! 2,499

$12,500-$14,999

$15,000-$19,999

$20.000-$29,999

$30,000 or more

Total

1,420,350 8 1,700,795 36 3,121,145 14

903,814 5 711,973 15 1,615,787 7

1,692,133 9 822,203 17 2,514,336 11

2,048,811 11 421,481 9 2,470,292 11

1,571,353 9 283,996 6 1,855,349 8

2.985,007 17 352,843 7 3.337,850 15

4,435,307 25 279,062 6 4.714,369 21

2,936.735 16 166,345 4 3,103,080 14

17.993,510 100 4,738,698

Dollars

100 22,732.208 100

Median income 15,604 6,878 14,716

— = Not applicable.
Arnold

A disproportionate percentage of rural elderly

renters (19 percent) lived in substandard housing

compared with rural elderly owners (7 percent).

Thirteen percent of nonelderly renters lived in substandard housing compared with 6 percent of nonelderly owners. In all regions of the country, substandard housing was more common among renters

than owners (table 3).

Approximately 7 out of 10 of the substandard units

occupied by the rural elderly were located in the

South in 1979. This relatively high concentration

reflects the greater prominence of renters among

the elderly in the South, the lower incomes in that

region, and the greater frequency of substandard

housing among both owners and renters in the

South (table 4),

Structural and Functional Flaws

Another way of looking at the quality of housing is

by examining the number of structural and funcTable 3—Percentage of rural elderly heads of

household living in substandard units by region and

tenure, 1979

T«r,„^^ North- North C^„+î. IA7««4^ United

^^"""^ east Central ^""^^ ^^"^ States

Percent

Rural elderly

heads 4 6 14 4 9

Owners 3 5 11 2 7

Renters 11 7 35 11 19

Note: Table is based on 4,748,157 persons.

Table 4—Regional distribution of substandard units

of rural elderly heads of household by tenure, 1979

Tenure North- North ^ ^^ ^^^^ United

east Central States

Rural elderly

heads 7 19 69 5 100

Owners 6 21 69 4 100

Renters 12 9 69 9 100

tional flaws in the housing unit. A unit has a structural flaw if it has two or more of the following

defects: open cracks or holes in walls or ceilings,

holes in the interior floors, or broken plaster or

peeling paint over 1 square foot. A unit has a functional flaw if it has one or more of the following

defects: inadequate plumbing facilities, kitchen

facilities, or heating equipment.

Few rural elderly households (4 percent) lived in

structurally flawed housing in 1979. Based on measures of the frequency of each flaw, rural elderly

households had the following problems in decreasing

order of importance (table 5). Eight percent had

incomplete plumbing facihties, 5 percent had

incomplete kitchen facilities; 5 percent had open

cracks or holes in the walls or ceilings; 4 percent

(excluding the South) had inadequate heating; 4 percent had peeling paint over 1 square foot; and 2

percent had holes in the interior floors.

The housing of rural elderly is more often flawed

than housing of urban elderly. In 1979, only a small

percentage of units of the urban aged had inadequate plumbing facilities (2 percent), kitchen facilities (1 percent), and heating equipment (1 percent).

About the same percentage (3 percent) of units

occupied by urban elderly had structural flaws as

units of rural elderly.

Rural elderly households have a higher percentage

of units with flaws than nonelderly households. In

1979, fewer rural nonelderly units had inadequate

plumbing facilities (4 percent), inadequate kitchen

facilities (2 percent), and structural flaws (3 percent). Inadequate heating was equally common

among elderly and nonelderly rural households.

Housing flaws are more prevalent among rural

elderly renters than owners. Of the rural aged

renters in 1979, 19 percent hved in units with

inadequate plumbing facilities, and 11 percent had

inadequate kitchen facilities, well above the 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively, among rural aged

owners. Structural defects were three times more

common among renters than owners (table 6).

Housing deficiencies are far more prevalent among

single rural elderly males than among single rural

elderly females. Lack of plumbing is particularly

prominent in the housing of single males (table 7). The

somewhat higher frequency of renters among males

than females likely contributes to the greater

amount of flawed housing among single males.
Table 5—Comparison of housing deficiencies by age category of head and rural/urban location, 1979

Item

Total

Household heads

Rural Urban

Nonaged Aged Total Nonaged Aged

Number

22,874,418 18,126,261 4,748,157 55,905,221 44,388,683 11,516,538

Percent

Type of flaw: o

Plumbing 5 4 8 1 1 2

1 Kitchen 3 2 5 1 1

Sewage disposal 3 2 6

1 Heating 4 4 4 1 1

Structural 3 3 4 4 4 3

Pubhc hall 1 1 1 3 3 3

Toilet access 5 6 1 3 4 1

Electrical * * 1

Number of flaws:^

One 12 12 8 10 11 7

Two 2 2 2 2 2 1

Three 2 1 3

k

•^

Four 1 1 2

Inadequate housing' 16 16 15 12 13 8

Severely inadequate rj 1

housing^ 5 4 7 2 2

*Less than 1 percent.

'Units with five or more flaws were less than 1 percent.

Housing units with one or more flaws.

'Housing units with two or more flaws.

Table 6—Comparison of housing deficiencies between rural elderly heads of household by tenure, 1979

Item Owners Renters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Numher PercenV

Rural elderly heads 3,994,277 100 753,880 100 4,748,157 100

Type of flaw:

Plumbing 248,087 6 144,492 19 392,579 8

Kitchen 134,624 3 86,222 11 220,846 5

Sewage disposal 163,391 4 108,474 14 271,865 6

Heating 140,888 4 32,999 4 173,887 4

Maintenance 107,895 3 67,761 9 175,656 4

Public hall 41,522 1 8,975 1 50,497 1

Toilet access 48,346 1 1,585 49,931 1

Electrical 13,303 * 10,937 2 24,240 1

Number of flaws:

One 309,275 8 81,311 11 390,586 8

Two 83,253 2 21,378 3 104,631 2

Three 76,547 2 56,305 8 132,852 3

Four 38,156 1 34,492 5 72,648 2

Five 8,002 * 6,099 1 14,101

Inadequate housing^ 515,233 13 199,585 27 714,818 15

Severely inadequate

housing' 205,958

^One or more flaws.

5 118,274 16 324,232 7

*Less than 1 percent. Two or more flaws.
Arnold

Flawed housing is more common in the South than

in other regions. Approximately 13 percent of the

housing occupied by rural elderly households in the

South in 1979 had inadequate plumbing facilities; 8

percent had inadequate kitchen facilities; and 6 percent had structural deficiencies (table 8).

The West showed the highest percentages of inadequate heating (South excluded); however, this may

have been due to the Southwestern areas constituting a larger percentage of the West. Heating

facilities are inadequate if no heating equipment is

used or if the heating equipment consists of only a

fireplace, stove, or room heater without a flue. In

the Southwest, as in the South, heating facilities

may not be needed to the extent they are needed in

the North. Therefore, heating facilities in the Southwest may have been classified as inadequate when,

in fact, they were adequate for the local climate.

Inadequate Housing

HUD's more comprehensive approach to housing

quality defines an inadequate unit as one that suffers from one or more of these defects:

^ Incomplete or shared plumbing facilities;

® Incomplete or shared kitchen facilities;

« No public sewer, septic tank, cesspool, or

chemical toilet;

* Inadequate heating {excluding the South);

® Inadequate maintenance (the unit suffers from

any two of these defects): leaking roof, open

cracks or holes in the interior walls or ceilings, holes in the interior floors, or broken

plaster or peeling paint on interior walls or

ceilings;

Table 7—Comparison of housing deficiencies of single male and single female rural elderly households, 1979

Item Male Female Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Single rural elderly heads 446,444 100 1,384,875 100 1,831,319 100

Type of flaw:

Plumbing

Kitchen

Sewage disposal

Heating

Maintenance

Public hall

Toilet access

Electrical

104,670

67,360

77,246

36,926

34,113

6,221

2,309

6,066

23

15

17

8

8

1

1

1

102,966

59,023

61,482

31,624

50,502

16,526

5,834

5,736

7

4

4

2

4

1

*

207,636

126,383

138,728

68,550

84,615

22,747

8,143

11,802

11

7

8

4

5

1

1

Number of flaws:

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

46,626

21,604

38,815

28,388

3,016

10

5

9

6

1

109,028

24,397

31,261

16,457

3,252

8

2

2

1

*

155,654

46,001

70,076

44,845

6,268

9

3

4

2

*

Inadequate housing^ 138,449 31 184,395 13 322,844 18

Severely inadequate

housing^ 91,823 21 75,367 5 167,190 9

*Less than 1 percent.

^One or more flaws.

Two or more flaws.
Housing of the Rural Elderly

• Few or no light fixtures; loose, broken, or missing steps; OF a loose or missing stair railing

in public areas of multiple housing units;

• Inadequate toilet access^—^access to sole flush

toilet is through one of two or more bedrooms

used for sleeping (apphes only to households

with children under IB); and

• Inadequate electrical facilities—exposed wiring, blown fuses, or tripped circuit breakers

three or more times in last 90 days, and no

working wall outlet in one or more rooms.

By this comprehensive measure of housing deficiencies, 15 percent of the rural elderly headed households lived in inadequate housing in 1979 compared

with 8 percent of the urban elderly (table 5).

Inadequate rural housing was particularly prominent among elderly renters [27 percent) and elderly

single males (31 percent) (tables 6 and 7,

respectively).

Of the inadequate units occupied by the rural

elderly, 55 percent had only one flaw, and 45 percent had two or more flaws and thus are regarded

as severely inadequate. In 1979, 93 percent of the

units with inadequate kitchen facilities also had one

or more other flaws. Nearly 80 percent of those

units lacking plumbing were severely inadequate.

Seventy-one percent of those with inadequate electrical equipment and 59 percent with inadequate

maintenance were severely inadequate. Only 30

percent of the units with inadequate heating, 14

percent with inadequate toilet access, and 8 percent with inadequate public halls were severely

inadequate.

Inadequately housed rural elderly were most prevalent in the West (19 percent) and the South (18

percent) and less common in the North Central

region (12 percent) and the Northeast (10 percent).

However, severely inadequate housing was far more

prevalent in the South (10 percent) than in the other

regions: the North Central (5 percent), the Northeast (3 percent), and the West (3 percent) (table 8).

Table 8—Qimparison of housing deficiencies by repon, in units occupied by the rural elderly, 1979

Item Northeast North Central South West Total

Number Pet Number Pet Number Pet Number Pet. Number Pet

Total elderly heads 734,252 100 1,355,914 100 2,086,604 100 571,387 100 4,748,157 100

Type of ñav^:

Plumbing

Kitchen

Sewage disposal

Heating

Maintenance

Public hall

Toilet access

Electrical

28,239

10,383

13,743

28,703

10,381

9,969

5,801

768

4

1

2

4

1

1

1

78,279

44,280

49,889

65,719

27,351

20,813

10,420

1,634

6

3

4

5

2

2

1

*

270,079

156,067

196,168

127,780

8,045

28,901

21,087

13

8

9

6

*

1

1

15.982

10,116

12,065

79,465

10,144

11,670

4,809

751

3

2

2

14

2

2

1

*

392,579

220,846

271,865

173,887

175,656

50,497

49,931

24,240

8

5

6

4

4

1

1

1

Number of flaws: ^

One

Two

Three

Four

51,281

12,596

7,274

2,423

7

2

1

99,945

21,667

21,118

15,938

7

2

2

1

151,295

65,683

98,513

49,668

7

3

5

2

88,065

4,685

5,947

4,619

15

1

1

1

390,586

104,631

132,852

72,648

8

2

3

2

Inadequate housing^ 73,574 10 164,268 12 371,410 18 105,566 19 714,818 15

Severely inadequate

housing^ 22,293 3 64,323 5 220,115 10 17,501 3 324,232 7

— = Not applicable.

*Less than 1 percent.

'Less than 1 percent of the units had five or more flaws.

^Housing units with one or more flaws.

^Housing units with two or more flaws.
Arnold

Summary of Housing Quality

These three definitions of housing deficiencies—substandard housing, structural and functional flaws,

and inadequate housing—reveal varying degrees of

poor-quality housing. In all cases, however, the

rural South has the highest percentage of flawed

housing. And, rural elderly headed households,

especially the renters in the South, are severely

plagued with inadequate housing.

Housing Affordability

Many elderly households on reduced or fixed

incomes have difficulty in meeting such rising housing costs as rent increases, property taxes, utilities,

or maintenance expenses. Households spending

more than 30 percent of their income for adequate

housing (neither crowded nor with inadequate

plumbing facilities) have an affordability problem.

The median percentage of income rural owners

spent on adequate housing in 1979 was almost tha

same for the aged as for the nonaged (about 17 percent). However, a considerably higher percentage of

income was spent on adequate housing by both the

elderly and nonelderly renters—30 and 22 percent,

respectively.

In 1979, 20 percent of rural elderly owners in adequate housing had affordability problems, devoting

30 percent or more of their incomes to meet housing

costs. Affordability problems were far more prevalent among elderly renters; 48 percent of the rural

elderly renters spent more than 30 percent of their

incomes for adequate housing. By comparison, 15

percent of the nonaged owners and 31 percent of

the nonaged renters had affordability problems.

Twenty-five percent of the aged owners in inadequate housing had affordability problems compared

with 14 percent of the nonaged owners. By comparison, 30 percent of the aged renters and 29 percent

of the nonaged renters living in substandard housing had affordability problems.

Although rural elderly headed households have relatively lower incomes, these elderly are to some

degree compensated by lower housing costs. However, income differences exceed the housing cost

differences for renters. The median income for

rural elderly renters was 64 percent less than that

for nonelderly renters, but the median gross rent

was only 44 percent less. The median income for

rural elderly owners was 61 percent less than

that for rural nonelderly owners, and the median

monthly housing costs were a similar 67 percent

less.

Homeowner Costs

Homeowner costs include real estate taxes,

property insurance, utilities, fuel, water, garbage

collection, and mortgage payments. However, in

1979, nearly 90 percent of rural homeowners over

65 had paid their mortgages completely. The rural

elderly had a median monthly housing cost of $299

for owners with a mortgage and $89 for those without. However, the median monthly housing cost of

younger households was considerably higher: $350

for owners with a mortgage and $105 for those

without.

Much of the difference in housing costs between the

elderly and nonelderly is due to differences in mortgage costs. The median monthly mortgage for

elderly owners was $115, well below the $197 for

nonelderly owners. This difference reflects the

higher interest rates and house prices the younger,

more recent home purchasers are paying. Median

monthly mortgage payments of the rural aged

owners varied considerably by region: $150 in the

West. $124 in the Northeast, $119 in the North

Central, and $87 in the South.

Rural elderly owners paid lower utility bills in 1979

than nonelderly owners. The median cost of utilities—electric, gas, oil, and water—was $82 for

elderly owners and $96 for nonelderly owners. The

lower cost to the elderly is likely due to the smaller

sizes of both their houses and their households.

Monthly utility costs for the rural elderly owner

were highest in the Northeast ($90) and lowest in

the West ($68).

Real estate taxes paid in 1979 were $191 for the

rural elderly owner, far below the $331 for the nonelderly owner. The median tax varied greatly across

the regions, from $489 in the Northeast to $96 in

the South.

Renter Costs

Monthly housing costs for rural elderly renters

include rental payments, utihties, and fuels. In

1979, the median gross rent for rural elderly

renters was $114 a month.^ The median gross rent

^Gross rent, as defined by AHS, is the contract rent plus the

estimated average monthly cost of utihties and fuels if these items

are paid for by the renter in addition to rent.

10
Housing of the Rural Elderly

for rural nonelderly was $205, nearly 80 percent

higher than for rural elderly. Urban elderly paid

considerably higher rent, $53 more a month, than

rural elderly. Rent paid by rural elderly renters

was highest in the Northeast ($148) and lowest in

the South ($93).

Renters had lower utility costs than owners. The

median monthly cost of utilities for rural elderly

renters was $59, lower than the $87 paid by nonelderly renters. Utility costs for rural elderly ranged

from $39 in the South and West to $66 in the North

Central region.

References

(1) Byland, Robert A., Nelson L. LeRay, and (8)

Charles O. Crawford. Older American Households and Their Housing 1975: A Metro-Nonmetro Comparison. A.E. & R.S. 146. Pa. State

Univ., Dept. Agr. Econ. Rural Sociology, in

cooperation with U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. (9)

Coop. Serv,, Jan. 1980.

(2) Goodman, John L., Jr. •*Causes and Indicators of

Housing Quality,'* Social Indicators Research,

Vol. 5, No. 2 (1978). 195-210. (10)

(3) Jacobs, Bruce. The Housing of Elderly Americans; An Address to the 1981 White House Conference of Aging. Washington. D.C., Dec. 2,

1981.

(4) Montgomery, James E., Alice C. Stubbs, and

Savannah S. Day. **The Housing Environment of

the Rural Elderly," The GerontoJogist Vol. 20,

No. 4 (Aug. 1980), 444-51.

. *The Housing Expense Burden of

Households Headed by the Elderly," The Gerontologist, Vol. 17, No. 5 (Oct. 1977), 447-52.

and Beth J. Soldo. Improving the

EJderJy's Housing. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger

PubHshing Co., 1980.

(5) Nathanson, Iric. Housing Needs of the Rural M 2]

Elderly and the Handicapped. HUD-PDR-633.

U.S. Dept. Housing Urban Dev., Office of Policy

Dev. Res., Nov. 1980.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. Annual Housing Survey; 1979, Part A,

General Housing Characteristics United States

and Hegions. Current Housing Report Series

H-150-79. Aug. 1980.

(11) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and

Research. How Well Are We Housed?; The

Elderly. HUD Publication No. 413. 1979.

. How Well Are We Housed?; ñuraJ.

HUD PubUcation No. 500. 1979.

(6) President's Commission on Housing. Report of

the President's Commission on Housing.

Apr. 1982.

(7) Struyk. Raymond J. 'The Housing Situation of (14)

Elderly Americans," The GerontoJogist, Vol. 17,

No. 2 (Apr. 1977), 130-93.

(13] University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for

Research on Poverty. *The Relative Economic

Status of the Aged," ÏRP Focus. 1983.

UnJociiing Home Equity for the Elderly. Ed. Ken

Scholen and Yung-Ping Chen. Cambridge, Mass.

Ballinger Publishing Co., 1980.

11
Information

for Decisionmakers

The Economic Research Service analyzes developments and trends affecting agriculture and rural America.

Performance of the agricultural Industry,

including the producing, processing,

and marketing sectors, is an important

area of research. Analysts provide

economic information to help you make

more knov/tedgeable decisions.

Economists project prices, supplies,

demand, and use of specific crops,

dairy, poultry, livestock, and other

products. They assess foreign

developments and agricultural policies

to determine the impacts on U.S.

trade.

Use, conservation, and development of

natural resources affecting economic

growth are a major area of research.

Trends in population, employment, and

housing, and economic adjustment

problems are closely reviewed and

reported.

Reports lists all current

agency publications and

prices. To be placed on its free

mailing list, write to:

Information Division

Room 1470-S., USDA

Washington, D.C. 20250
The 1983 Handbook

of Agricultural Charts

Economic and agricultural trends come alive in

this two-color handbook, containing 278 charts

depicting all significant aspects of agriculture. A

valuable research tool, popular teaching device,

and convenient format for presenting a complete overview of the agricultural sector. The

charts illustrate data and trends for agricultural

subjects ranging from farm income to consumer

costs, and from commodities to energy production and use. Charts showing trade data, cost of

production figures, farmland numbers, and population trends round out the agricultural picture

presented in this handbook. A USDA "bestseller."

Write check payable to

Superintendent of Documents

Add 25% for foreign address.

MAILORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

For Office Use Only

Name.

Quantity Charges

-Enclosed

-To be mailed-

-Subscriptions.

Postage

Foreign handling.

MMOB

OPNR_

_UPNS

. DISCOUNT

Refund

Address .

City, State, Zip

Please send me a copy of:

{3f983 Handbook of Agricultural Charts.

AH-619. 100 pp.

Order SN: 001 -000-04377-3

from GPO. $5.00.

Enclosed is $

n Check

r~| Money order

I I Charge to my Deposit Account

No

Credit Card Order Only

D VISA D Mastercard

Total charges $

Credit card No. ,

Expiration Date Month/Year.
United States

Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC.

20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage ar)d Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Agriculture

AGR-IOI

THIRD CLASS BULK RATE

NEWLnpjn Rural Development Perspectives

For a New Perspective on Issues Facing Rural America

This new periodical will bring you, three times a year, an eclectic

m\% of rural Information and ideas with each article, written in a crisp,

nontechnical manner, generously illustrated with photos, maps, and

charts.

Premier issues of Rural Development Perspectives will discuss:

• Low-income counties-can the poverty pattern be broken?

• Interlocal contracting-how can localities get the most for their

money when they contract with other localities for certain municipal

services (firefighting, for example)?

e Rural America's Infrastructure-what is its condition and how does

it affect rural development?

• Managing ruraí local governments-how do governing boards acquire

the expertise they heed?

• Migralloh to furat areas-what are new arrivals looking for. how do

they differ from long-term inhabitants, what does new population mean for

the area?

• Federal rural development policy-a new course for the I980's?

To complemem its feature articles. Rurar Development Perspectives

will also incJutfeDooK reviews, a digest of recent research of note, and a

sectk)n of charts antf maps measuring various rural conditions.

To order a s«l>sci1ptlon, seîid^ ft0^<$m6ö fôre»^^^^^^

intendent <^ Oöcuimifttt, ll.a Qovemfheftt PrtnttiitOtflee, Washington.

DC. 20402. MYclorilliirirlSefêlopiiMntPèripiNStfvei. The first issue is

due off prestin October.

#: