Demographic and Socioeconomic Change

in Appalachia

HOUSING AND COMMUTING PATTERNS

IN APPALACHIA

by

Mark Mather

Population Reference Bureau

January 2004
About This Series

ìDemographic and Socioeconomic Change in Appalachiaî is a series of reports that examine

demographic, social, and economic levels and trends in the 13-state Appalachian region. Each

report uses data from the decennial censuses of 1990 and 2000, plus supplemental information

from other data sources.

Current reports in the series include:

• ìAppalachia at the Millennium: An Overview of Results from Census 2000,î by Kelvin

M. Pollard (June 2003)

• ìHousing and Commuting Patterns in Appalachia,î by Mark Mather (January 2004).

• ìThe Aging of Appalachia,î by John G. Haaga (April 2004).

• ìHouseholds and Families in Appalachia,î by Mark Mather (forthcoming).

• ìEducational Attainment in Appalachia,î by John G. Haaga (forthcoming).

Additional reports will cover: Labor Market Performance, Poverty, and Income Inequality;

Migration and Immigration; Population Change and Distribution; Geographic Concentration of

Poverty; and Race and Ethnicity.

You can view and download the reports by visiting either www.prb.org or www.arc.gov.

For more information about the series, please contact either Kelvin Pollard of the Population

Reference Bureau (202-939-5424, kelvinp@prb.org) or Gregory Bischak of the Appalachian

Regional Commission (202-884-7790, gbischak@arc.gov).

The authors wish to thank the Appalachian Regional Commission for providing the funding for

this series.

Population Reference Bureau

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 520

Washington, DC 20009-3728

The Population Reference Bureau is the leader in providing timely and objective information on

U.S. and international population trends and their implications.

Appalachian Regional Commission

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20009-1068

The Appalachian Regional Commissionís mission is to be an advocate for and partner with the

people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and

improved quality of life.
INTRODUCTION

Appalachia is a region best known for its economic hardship. The area became a focus of

political attention during Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s, when the president’s

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) found that economic development in the region1

lagged behind that of the rest of the United States. Since then, Appalachia has rarely been

mentioned in national debates about economic growth. Instead, the focus has shifted to large

urban areas where most of the country’s poor people live and where social and economic

problems tend to be more visible on a daily basis. 

During the past four decades, economic conditions have improved in many areas of

Appalachia, especially in counties bordering large metropolitan areas. But in other parts of the

region—especially counties in central Appalachia2—the lack of job opportunities, high poverty

rates, and social and economic isolation of families have contributed to serious housing

problems. Welfare reform has moved millions of people into the labor force, but for many

families, there is a “spatial mismatch” between the locations of new jobs for entry-level and

low-skilled workers and the residences of poor people. This is usually discussed as a problem

for inner cities, but it is also an acute problem in Appalachia.

The first part of this report addresses housing issues in two broad categories: homeownership

rates and quality of housing. The second part of the report looks at commuting patterns in

Appalachia and the location and affordability of homes relative to areas of job growth.

Most of the data in this report are based on county-level information from the U.S.

decennial census. Data from Census 2000 are compared with data from the 1990 Census to look

at changes in housing and commuting patterns during the 1990s. This report is part of a series

of reports being written for the Appalachian Regional Commission on topics including

population growth, labor markets, poverty, racial and ethnic diversity, marriage and family, age

structure, migration, and education.

Data from the census are supplemented with information from the Census Bureau’s County

Business Patterns data and County-to-County Worker Flow files. The County Business Patterns

data provide information about job growth from 1990 to 2000, while the commuting data are

used to identify the number of people who traveled outside their resident counties to work in

1990 and 2000.

1
HOUSING

Homeownership

Buying a home has long been a key part of the American dream—an important step for

families to improve their quality of life and to become financially secure. For most Americans,

especially those living in poor or low-income families, a home is the most valuable asset they

will ever own. In Appalachia, homeownership provides an important source of economic

security for millions of families. In 2000, there were 6.6 million owner-occupied homes in

Appalachia, and the homeownership rate in the region (73 percent) far exceeded the national

average (66 percent) (see Table 1). Between 1990 and 2000, there was a 15 percent increase in

the number of owner-occupied homes in Appalachia. In Appalachia’s fast-growing southern

subregion, the number of owner-occupied homes increased by 24 percent, exceeding the

national average (18 percent).

High rates of homeownership were fairly widespread throughout the Appalachian region 

in 2000. Although metropolitan3 counties in Appalachia had a slightly lower rate of

homeownership (72 percent) than nonmetropolitan counties (76 percent), this difference was

less pronounced than the metro/nonmetro difference in areas outside Appalachia (64 percent vs.

74 percent, respectively). In part, this reflects the greater affordability of homes in metro

counties in Appalachia, compared with metro areas in more expensive housing markets on the

East and West coasts.

Homeownership rates were highest in Appalachia’s Distressed4 counties (76 percent) and

lowest in Attainment counties (69 percent). In Appalachia’s most distressed communities, the

lack of jobs may be contributing to high rates of homeownership, because of the low levels of

residential and economic mobility among people who live in these areas.5 Many low-income

families in distressed areas lack the financial resources to move closer to jobs, a problem that is

exacerbated by the scarcity of affordable rental housing in the Appalachian region (an issue

addressed later in this report). There has also been a recent increase in the number of mobile

homes, which has boosted homeownership rates in Appalachia’s poorest communities.

2
Table 1

Trends in Homeownership in the United States and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Percent 

Total Total change

occupied Owner- occupied Owner- in number

housing occupied housing occupied of ownerunits units units units occupied 

(thousands) (thousands) Percent (thousands) (thousands) Percent units

U.S. 91,947 59,025 64.2 105,480 69,816 66.2 18.3

Non-Appalachian U.S. 84,003 53,280 63.4 96,485 63,207 65.5 18.6

Metropolitan areas 68,760 42,289 61.5 79,136 50,446 63.7 19.3

Nonmetropolitan areas 15,242 10,991 72.1 17,349 12,760 73.6 16.1

Appalachia 7,945 5,745 72.3 8,995 6,609 73.5 15.0

Metropolitan areas 4,623 3,255 70.4 5,217 3,755 72.0 15.4

Nonmetropolitan areas 3,322 2,490 75.0 3,779 2,854 75.5 14.6

Distressed 990 744 75.2 1,092 834 76.4 12.1

Attainment 1,079 720 66.7 1,248 864 69.2 20.0

Competitive 697 496 71.2 847 619 73.1 24.7

Transitional 5,179 3,784 73.1 5,808 4,292 73.9 13.4

North 3,773 2,712 71.9 3,989 2,906 72.8 7.1

South 3,417 2,464 72.1 4,152 3,052 73.5 23.9

Central 755 569 75.3 855 652 76.2 14.6

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

To a lesser degree, high homeownership rates in Appalachia also reflect the older age

structure of Appalachia’s population and the fact that people age 65 and older are slightly more

likely to own homes. In 2000, 27 percent of homes in Appalachia were owned by people age 65

and older, compared with 25 percent nationwide.6

In 2000, there were 102 counties in Appalachia (out of 410) where the homeownership rate

was 80 percent or more. At the top of the list was Botetourt County, Virginia (outside Roanoke)

and Forsyth County, Georgia (near Atlanta) at 88 percent each. What distinguishes Appalachia

from the rest of the country is the high rates of homeownership in Distressed counties. In 2000,

there were 29 counties nationwide where the homeownership rate was 80 percent or more and

at least 20 percent of residents were living in poverty. Of these 29 counties, 13 were located in

the Appalachian region—all but one in Distressed counties in central or southern Appalachia. 

3
Homeownership is an American dream that cuts across racial, ethnic, and geographic

boundaries. But there are well-documented differences in homeownership rates between whites

and other groups. Nationwide, about 72 percent of non-Hispanic whites7 owned homes in 2000,

compared with 46 percent of African Americans and Hispanics (see Table 2). In Appalachia,

about 76 percent of non-Hispanic whites owned homes, while only 52 percent of African

Americans did. Rates of homeownership were sharply lower among Hispanics living in

Appalachia, at about 42 percent. Many of the Hispanics living in Appalachia arrived there fairly

recently, which helps explain their low rates of homeownership compared with more

established racial groups.

The racial gap in homeownership rates is highest in Attainment counties, where there are

higher home values, on average. Many black and Hispanic families—who tend to have lower

incomes—lack the resources to buy homes in these communities. In contrast, the greater

affordability of homes in more distressed areas within Appalachia puts homeownership within

reach for a greater share of families, regardless of race. In 2000, three-fourths of non-Hispanic

whites (75 percent) owned homes in ARC Attainment counties, compared with less than half

(44 percent) of blacks and only two-fifths (40 percent) of Hispanics. In contrast, about 77

percent of whites, more than two thirds (68 percent) of blacks, and over half of Hispanics (56

percent) living in Distressed counties owned homes. 

Table 2

Homeownership Rates in the United States and Appalachia, by Race/Ethnicity, 2000

Homeownership Rates

Non-Hispanic white African American Hispanic 

households households households

U.S. 72.4 46.3 45.7 

Non-Appalachian U.S. 72.0 46.0 45.7 

Metropolitan areas 71.0 44.1 44.6 

Nonmetropolitan areas 76.1 60.0 58.3 

Appalachia 76.0 52.0 42.2 

Metropolitan areas 75.3 48.2 42.1 

Nonmetropolitan areas 76.9 61.8 42.4 

Distressed 77.3 67.9 55.9 

Attainment 75.1 43.6 40.1 

Competitive 76.3 49.2 38.3 

Transitional 75.9 53.2 43.5 

North 74.5 41.2 48.6 

South 77.4 54.4 39.5 

Central 76.9 57.1 51.4 

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

4
For whites, homeownership rates in Appalachia’s metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas

were about equal in 2000 (75 percent vs. 77 percent, respectively). But among blacks, the rate

in metro areas (48 percent) was substantially lower than the rate in nonmetro areas (62 percent).

For Hispanics, homeownership rates were equal in metro and nonmetro areas, but at

significantly lower levels (42 percent each).

Over the past decade, the racial gap in homeownership rates has narrowed, due in part to an

increasing number of mortgage loans to low-income, minority households. According to a

recent report from the Brookings Institution, mortgage lending increased by 98 percent for

African American homebuyers and by 125 percent for Hispanic homebuyers during the 1990s.8

Rising rates of homeownership among minorities represent a positive step toward closing the

wealth gap between whites and other groups. But recent economic data, showing increases in

unemployment and mortgage foreclosures,9 suggest that many families are still struggling to

make their dream of homeownership a reality.

Housing Quality

While homeownership is an important measure of economic security, it does not indicate

anything about the environment in which people live. In 1949, the U.S. Congress established

the goal of providing “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American

family.”10 Poor physical housing quality may indicate that families do not have the financial

resources needed for maintenance and repairs. Homes with inadequate plumbing or without

access to running water are of particular concern because of the potential health risk to the

population—particularly children and the older population.

“The most common image of Appalachian housing is a small shack with a sagging porch,

perched precariously on a hillside.”11 Although historically, the quality of homes in the region

has lagged behind the rest of the United States, there have been significant improvements

during the past 50 years. Still, there are many geographic areas and subgroups of the population

in Appalachia with significant housing problems. 

5
Incomplete Plumbing

A key measure of housing adequacy is the availability of complete plumbing in the housing

unit.12 Between 1990 and 2000, the number of housing units in Appalachia with incomplete

plumbing fell from 116,971 to 62,149, a 47 percent decrease. In 1990, about one out of every

six U.S. homes with incomplete plumbing was located in Appalachia, but by 2000, Appalachia

accounted for less than one out of every 10 homes with incomplete plumbing. In 2000, less

than 1 percent of occupied housing units in Appalachia had incomplete plumbing (0.7 percent),

compared with 0.6 percent nationwide (see Table 3). In areas outside of Appalachia, the number

of homes with incomplete plumbing actually increased slightly during the 1990s, from 604,722

to 608,837.

Table 3

Trends in Occupied Housing Units with Incomplete Plumbing in the United States

and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Percent change

With incomplete With incomplete in housing units

plumbing plumbing with incomplete 

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent plumbing

U.S. 722 0.8 671 0.6 -7.0

Non-Appalachian U.S. 605 0.7 609 0.6 0.7

Metropolitan areas 363 0.5 445 0.6 22.6

Nonmetropolitan areas 242 1.6 164 0.9 -32.2

Appalachia 117 1.5 62 0.7 -46.9

Metropolitan areas 36 0.8 24 0.5 -32.5

Nonmetropolitan areas 81 2.4 38 1.0 -53.2

Distressed 44 4.4 17 1.6 -60.9

Attainment 4 0.4 5 0.4 19.3

Competitive 5 0.7 3 0.4 -32.7

Transitional 64 1.2 37 0.6 -42.6

North 41 1.1 25 0.6 -37.3

South 42 1.2 24 0.6 -43.3

Central 34 4.5 13 1.5 -62.6

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

The growth in construction of new homes in urban and suburban areas in Appalachia and

across the United States is the driving force behind the decades-long improvement in housing

quality.13 The migration of the population out of Appalachia’s rural areas has played an

important role in this housing transformation. Many older homes with severe structural

6
deficiencies have been abandoned or replaced with new homes. Problems persist in

Appalachia’s Distressed counties, which were the most likely to have incomplete plumbing in

2000 (2 percent). In 2000, about 12 percent of all occupied housing units in Appalachia were

located in Distressed counties, but Distressed counties accounted for over 25 percent of homes

with incomplete plumbing. However, Distressed counties also experienced the biggest decrease

in homes with incomplete plumbing during the 1990s (a 61 percent decrease).

There are also important racial differences in housing quality. In 2000, blacks in the United

States were more than twice as likely and Hispanics were more than three times as likely as

non-Hispanic whites to live in homes with incomplete plumbing. In Appalachia, the racial

differences were not as large, with 0.6 percent of whites, 1.0 percent of blacks, and 1.1 percent

of Hispanics in homes with incomplete plumbing.14

At the local level, Hancock County, Tennessee, had the highest share of homes in

Appalachia with incomplete plumbing (8 percent). In Hancock, the public water and sewer

systems do not extend outside of Sneedville, the county seat.15 However, most of the homes in

Appalachia with plumbing deficiencies were located in Kentucky and West Virginia.

Even in Appalachia’s poorest regions, there were dramatic improvements in plumbing

during the 1990s. In 1990, there were 14 Appalachian counties where 10 percent or more

households lacked complete plumbing. In 2000, there were no counties in Appalachia that

exceeded this threshold, and only one that exceeded 5 percent. 

Crowding

Another dimension of housing quality is the level of crowding in the housing unit.

Crowding was once considered to be an urban problem, but it is also a growing problem in

many rural communities and small towns. Low-income families—especially new immigrants—

are more likely to live in crowded conditions in order to share the cost of housing,16 and recent

research has shown that overcrowding has become a serious issue for many Hispanics living in

rural areas.17 Severe overcrowding can lead to health and safety risks, particularly if crowded

conditions are combined with physical housing deficiencies. In this report, crowded conditions

are defined as having more than one person per room in a housing unit.18

7
8

In 2000, Appalachia had relatively few overcrowded housing units (2 percent), compared

with the national average (6 percent) (see Table 4). This is explained, in part, by the lower cost

of housing in the region, and the fact that there are slightly fewer people per household in

Appalachia (2.5) than in the United States as a whole (2.6). Most likely, the difference reflects

the relatively low levels of international migration to Appalachia compared with large

metropolitan areas, such as New York and Los Angeles.

In 2000, crowding was more common in Appalachia’s renter-occupied housing units (4

percent), compared with owner-occupied units (1 percent), but outside of Appalachia there was an

equal share of renters and owners living in crowded living conditions (6 percent each). There was

little change in the level of crowding in Appalachia’s housing units between 1990 and 2000.19

At the local level, the county with the highest percentage of overcrowded housing units was

Whitfield County, Georgia (10 percent), a Competitive county southeast of Chattanooga,

Tennessee. A rapid increase in the Hispanic population in Whitfield County accounts for the

large number of crowded housing units there. Hispanics from Central and South America are

moving to Whitfield County in large numbers to work in the county’s carpet mills. In the 2000

Census, more than 20 percent of Whitfield’s population was identified as Hispanic or Latino.20

Table 4

Trends in Housing Units with More than One Person Per Room in the United States

and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

More than More than Percent change

one person one person in number

per room per room of crowded 

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent housing units

U.S. 4,312 4.7 6,073 5.8 40.9

Non-Appalachian U.S. 4,153 4.9 5,890 6.1 41.8

Metropolitan areas 3,604 5.2 5,250 6.6 45.7

Nonmetropolitan areas 548 3.6 640 3.7 16.8

Appalachia 159 2.0 184 2.0 15.5

Metropolitan areas 80 1.7 99 1.9 24.6

Nonmetropolitan areas 79 2.4 84 2.2 6.3

Distressed 32 3.2 25 2.3 -20.8

Attainment 16 1.5 31 2.5 88.1

Competitive 14 2.1 23 2.7 60.2

Transitional 96 1.9 104 1.8 8.3

North 52 1.4 52 1.3 -0.7

South 85 2.5 115 2.8 35.1

Central 21 2.8 16 1.9 -23.3

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.
In Appalachia as a whole, there were major differences in crowding among different racial

and ethnic groups. Hispanics in Appalachia were by far the most likely to live in crowded

conditions in 2000 (26 percent), compared with blacks (5 percent) or non-Hispanic whites (1

percent). In Competitive counties in Appalachia, about 38 percent of Hispanics lived in

crowded conditions in 2000, far exceeding the national average for Hispanic households (29

percent).21

Severely Inadequate Homes

By combining measures of crowding and incomplete plumbing, it is possible to identify

“severely inadequate” homes—those with both physical deficiencies (lack of complete

plumbing) and crowded conditions (more than 1.5 occupants per room).22 In 2000, there were

86,625 occupied housing units nationwide that met both of these criteria. While Appalachia

accounted for 9 percent of all occupied housing units in 2000, it accounted for only 2 percent of

severely inadequate homes. This contradicts common perceptions about widespread problems in

housing quality in Appalachia. However, because overcrowding is not a major problem in

Appalachia, this particular measure may obscure other important housing problems in the

Appalachian region. 

Mobile Homes

One of the factors behind the improvement in housing quality in Appalachia is the increase

in mobile homes. Because mobile homes tend to be newer than conventional homes in the

region, mobile homes are less likely to have structural deficiencies or other major problems.23

The Census Bureau defines “mobile homes” as any housing units built in a factory and towed to

its site on its own wheels. In rural areas throughout the United States, mobile homes have

become increasingly popular in recent years because of the significant cost savings compared

with conventional homes.24 In 2000, the median value of mobile homes was $31,200, compared

with $119,600 for all owner-occupied homes.25 The lower cost of mobile homes has made them

appealing to low-income families,26 who otherwise could not afford to buy a home. In

Appalachia, the rapid increase in mobile homes is also related to the lack of suitable land

because of the hilly and rocky terrain in many parts of the region.27

9
Although mobile homes are economical and provide a means of establishing equity for

many low-income families, there are concerns about the quality of these homes and whether

they really are good investments for low-income families.28 The popularity of mobile homes

has boosted homeownership rates in Appalachia, but they may be a poor substitute for

affordable rental housing in distressed areas. Mobile homes also carry a stigma of poverty that

perpetuates negative stereotypes about Appalachia and the families who live there.

In 2000, there were 1.4 million mobile homes in Appalachia, accounting for about 14

percent of Appalachia’s housing units (see Table 5). This is twice the share of mobile homes

outside the Appalachian region (7 percent). In nonmetro counties in Appalachia, about one in

five housing units were mobile homes (19 percent), compared with 16 percent in nonmetro

areas outside of Appalachia.

Table 5

Trends in Mobile Homes in the United States and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Percent change

Mobile homes Mobile homes in number of 

(thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent mobile homes

U.S. 7,324 7.2 8,779 7.6 19.9

Non-Appalachian U.S. 6,233 6.7 7,361 7.0 18.1

Metropolitan areas 3,637 4.8 4,159 4.9 14.3

Nonmetropolitan areas 2,596 14.2 3,203 15.5 23.4

Appalachia 1,091 12.3 1,418 14.0 30.0

Metropolitan areas 448 8.9 560 9.8 24.9

Nonmetropolitan areas 642 16.8 858 19.5 33.6

Distressed 223 20.0 310 24.7 39.0

Attainment 47 4.0 59 4.4 25.4

Competitive 97 12.8 115 12.5 18.8

Transitional 725 12.4 935 14.2 29.0

North 409 9.6 455 10.0 11.3

South 515 13.6 724 15.7 40.7

Central 167 19.9 239 24.7 42.6

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

Mobile homes are highly concentrated in Distressed counties in Appalachia’s central region

(see Map 1). In 2000, about one in four housing units in Distressed counties (25 percent) were

mobile homes. In contrast, mobile homes accounted for only 4 percent of homes in

Appalachia’s Attainment counties. About 10 percent of housing units in Appalachia’s

10
metropolitan areas were mobile homes, twice the share of mobile homes in metro areas outside

the region.

Between 1990 and 2000, there was a 30 percent increase in the number of mobile homes in

Appalachia, compared with a 20 percent increase nationwide. The share of mobile homes in

Appalachia increased from 12 percent to 14 percent during the decade, with the fastest growth

in the most distressed areas. The share of mobile homes increased by 5 percentage points in

Appalachia’s Distressed counties during the 1990s.

The county with the highest share of mobile homes in Appalachia is Magoffin County,

Kentucky. In 2000, about 44 percent of housing units in the county—including city hall—were

mobile homes.29

11

Map 1

Mobile Homes as a Percentage of all Housing Units, 2000

Mobile homes, 2000

30 percent or more

20 percent to 29.9 percent

10 percent to 19.9 percent

Less than 10 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Housing Vacancy

The proportion of vacant units (or conversely, the occupancy rate) in an area is another way

to gauge the economic health of a community.30 Areas with a large number of vacant units are

likely to have suffered population losses and may have trouble attracting new residents due to

lack of job opportunities, high crime rates, or poor schools. In the case of Appalachia, many of

the counties that once relied on coal mining have suffered population losses for decades.

McDowell County, West Virginia, has lost 70 percent of its population since 1950, largely

because of the decline in the coal industry.31 McDowell County had the highest percentage of

vacant homes in the Appalachian region in 2000 (17 percent).

In 2000, there were 745,841 vacant housing units in Appalachia, accounting for 7 percent of

all housing units (see Table 6). Nationwide, the share of vacant units was only slightly lower (6

percent). Although the percentage of vacant units in Appalachia did not increase much in

percentage terms, the number of vacant units increased by 22 percent during the 1990s.

Nationwide, the number of vacant units nationwide decreased by 5 percent during the decade.

Table 6

Trends in Vacant Homes in the United States and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Non-seasonal Non-seasonal Percent change

vacant homes vacant homes in number of 

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent vacant units

U.S. 7,234 7.1 6,846 5.9 -5.4

Non-Appalachian U.S. 6,622 7.1 6,100 5.8 -7.9

Metropolitan areas 5,036 6.7 4,474 5.3 -11.2

Nonmetropolitan areas 1,586 8.7 1,626 7.9 2.5

Appalachia 613 6.9 746 7.4 21.7

Metropolitan areas 326 6.5 398 7.0 22.0

Nonmetropolitan areas 287 7.5 348 7.9 21.3

Distressed 94 8.5 117 9.3 24.0

Attainment 80 6.9 88 6.6 10.2

Competitive 47 6.3 56 6.1 18.8

Transitional 391 6.7 485 7.3 23.9

North 278 6.5 315 7.0 13.3

South 265 7.0 341 7.4 28.7

Central 70 8.3 90 9.3 28.6

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

12
In 2000, there were 71 counties in Appalachia with vacancy rates of 10 percent or more.

This represents a substantial increase over the 40 counties that had high vacancy rates in 1990.

Forty-seven of the counties with high vacancy rates in 2000 were located in three states—West

Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama. Forty-nine of the 71 were in the Distressed category; 67 were

outside metropolitan areas; and 27 lost population between 1990 and 2000.

COMMUTING

Travel Time to Work

The time spent commuting to work has become a major concern of both policymakers and

the public in recent years, especially with the increased attention to traffic gridlock and urban

sprawl. In The Cost of Sprawl—2000, researchers at Rutgers University investigated the various

costs of commuting to work.32 In addition to the monetary costs of fuel, vehicle maintenance,

and auto insurance, many people spend a significant amount of time sitting in traffic each day.

This reduces the time that people could be spending at work or at home with their families.

Robert Putnum cites suburban sprawl and long commutes as one of the major factors that

has reduced the social capital (“community-connectedness”) in U.S. society.33 With all of the

time spent commuting to and from work, there is less time for social and civil engagement in

society (e.g., voting, activism, club memberships, and dinner parties).

Although long commutes are most often discussed in terms of their negative impacts, they

can also have positive effects for families and communities. Commuting provides economic

links between urban centers and surrounding areas. Advances in transportation and technology

have enabled some people to live far from their places of work. Plus, most families prefer to

live in quiet, rural or suburban communities with low-density housing, good schools, and low

crime rates. During the past several decades, many smaller cities and towns—particularly those

within or adjacent to major metropolitan areas—have grown into wealthy bedroom

communities.34 In fact, some of the most economically developed counties in Appalachia are

those bordering the Atlanta Metropolitan Area, which has experienced rapid economic and

population growth during the 1990s.

13
14

Long commutes are more likely to represent a problem in more rural areas where there is

limited public transportation and few job opportunities. Public transportation is virtually

nonexistent in Appalachia; only 1 percent of workers took public transportation to work in 2000.

Unemployment in Appalachia was relatively low overall (6 percent), but exceeded 10 percent in

parts of central and southern Appalachia. There are counties in parts of central Appalachia that

are similar to inner cities in their high unemployment rates, lack of job opportunities, and

inadequate transportation systems to move people from their homes to areas of job growth. Long

commutes, therefore, can be an indication of broader economic problems in the community.

Overall, Appalachian workers spent slightly less time traveling to work in 2000 than

workers in the rest of the country. In 2000, the average travel time to work in the United States

was about 26 minutes, compared with 25 minutes in Appalachia (see Table 7). Workers in

central Appalachia spent more time commuting (27 minutes, on average) than those in southern

(25 minutes) or northern Appalachia (24 minutes). The average travel time to work in

Appalachia’s nonmetropolitan counties (25 minutes) equaled the average travel time in

metropolitan areas. But outside of Appalachia, the travel time to work was substantially higher

in metro counties (26 minutes) compared with nonmetro counties (22 percent).

Table 7

Mean Travel Time to Work in the United States and Appalachia, in Minutes,

1990 to 2000

1990 2000

People working People working Percent change

outside the home Mean outside the home Mean (mean

(thousands) travel time (thousands) travel time travel time)

U.S. 111,664 22.4 124,095 25.5 14.1

Non-Appalachian U.S. 102,904 22.5 114,310 25.6 13.8

Metropolitan areas 86,314 23.3 95,299 26.2 12.8

Nonmetropolitan areas 16,589 18.5 19,012 22.4 20.9

Appalachia 8,761 20.9 9,785 24.8 18.8

Metropolitan areas 5,291 20.9 5,890 24.5 17.2

Nonmetropolitan areas 3,469 20.9 3,894 25.3 21.3

Distressed 874 22.9 975 28.0 22.4

Attainment 1,290 22.4 1,478 26.0 16.0

Competitive 878 21.5 1,021 24.9 16.1

Transitional 5,719 20.2 6,311 24.1 19.3

North 3,989 20.3 4,250 24.2 19.4

South 4,079 21.2 4,760 25.1 18.0

Central 693 22.5 775 26.9 19.3

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.
Workers in Appalachia’s Distressed counties had the longest commutes (28 minutes, on

average). The time spent to commuting to work in Distressed areas in Kentucky and West

Virginia was similar to that of the Washington, D.C., suburbs—one of the most congested areas

in the country (see Map 2).

Another way to measure the distance that people travel to work is through the Census

Bureau’s County-to-County Worker Flow files. With over 3,000 counties in the United States

(many of them quite small in area), it is fairly common for people to work outside the counties

where they live. In 2000, 27 percent of workers in the United States worked outside their

counties of residence. About 29 percent of workers in Appalachia—and a third of the workers

in Appalachia’s central region—commuted to jobs in other counties.

15

Map 2

Mean Travel Time to Work in Appalachia, in Minutes, 2000

Mean travel time to work, 2000

35 minutes or more

30 minutes or 34.9 minutes

25 minutes to 29.9 minutes

Less than 25 minutes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
It is also possible to estimate the proportion of workers who resided in Appalachia but

commuted to jobs outside the region. In 2000, about 900,000 workers in Appalachia (9 percent

of the work force) commuted to jobs outside the region. The share of workers commuting

outside the region was highest in southern Appalachia (10 percent), followed by central

Appalachia (9 percent), and northern Appalachia (7 percent). The relatively large number of

people commuting to work outside the Appalachian region indicates that many Appalachian

counties—particularly those near the perimeter of the region—are highly integrated with nearby

metropolitan areas.

Three of the five U.S. counties with the longest average travel times to work in 2000 were

located in Appalachia, including Elliott County, Kentucky, Pike County, Pennsylvania, and Clay

County, West Virginia (see Appendix 1). In each of these counties, the average travel time to

work exceeded 45 minutes. That means that the average worker spent at least an hour and a half

driving to and from work each day. Nationwide, there were 30 counties where more than 10

percent of workers traveled more than 90 minutes to work each day (a daily commute of at least

two-and-a-half hours), and 10 of them were located in Appalachia (see Appendix 2). 

Some of the counties whose residents had the longest commutes were either at the edges of

or adjacent to metropolitan areas (for example, Pike and Monroe counties in Pennsylvania;

Clay, Hampshire, Lincoln, and Jefferson counties in West Virginia; and Paulding and Heard

counties in Georgia). But residents in some of Appalachia’s more isolated rural counties also

had long commutes. (Workers in Magoffin County, Kentucky, and Doddridge County in West

Virginia, for example, commuted between 38 and 39 minutes to their jobs, on average.)

Appalachian counties that border large metropolitan areas tend to be economically better off

than counties in more rural areas. For example, Pike County, Pennsylvania, and Elliott County,

Kentucky, are both located in the Appalachian region, and workers in both counties travel over

45 minutes, on average, to work each day. But Pike County—only 75 miles from New York

City—offers commuter bus and rail service to northern New Jersey and other parts of the New

York metropolitan area. In 2000, about 47 percent of workers in Pike County commuted to jobs

in New Jersey and New York state. The poverty rate in Pike County in 1999 was only 6

percent, and 5 percent of the civilian labor force was unemployed in 2000. In contrast, Elliott

County, Kentucky, borders the much smaller Huntington-Ashland Metropolitan Area. Public

transportation is virtually nonexistent. About 34 percent of Elliott County’s labor force worked

16
in neighboring counties of Carter, Lawrence, Morgan, and Rowan. The remainder—about 30

percent—worked in nonadjacent counties in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. In 1999, 21

percent of the population was living below the poverty line, and 11 percent of the civilian labor

force was unemployed in 2000.

This combination of high poverty rates and long commutes is typical in central Appalachia.

In 2000, there were 46 U.S. counties where the travel time to work averaged 30 minutes or

more and where at least one-fifth of the population was living in poverty (see Appendix 3). Of

these counties, 23 are in Appalachia—almost all of them in Kentucky and West Virginia.

In Appalachia and in many other parts of the United States, the travel time to work increased

during the 1990s. The average travel time to work increased by four minutes in Appalachia,

compared with a three-minute increase nationwide. In Appalachia’s Distressed counties, the

average travel time increased by five minutes. At the local level, there were 12 counties in

Appalachia where average travel times increased by 10 minutes or more (see Map 3). 

17

Map 3

Change in Travel Time to Work in Appalachia, in Minutes, 1990 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

Change

10 minute or greater increase

5 minute to 9.9 minute increase

Less than 5 minute increase

Decrease in mean travel time
This included a 19-minute increase in Pike County, Pennsylvania, a 17-minute increase in Clay

County, West Virginia, and a 15-minute increase in Calhoun County, West Virginia. Of the 20

U.S. counties with the biggest increases in the travel time to work, seven were located in

Appalachia (see Appendix 4).

What explains the increasingly long commutes in Appalachia’s economically distressed

areas? Welfare reform has played an important role. Welfare reform has moved millions of

people into the labor force, but for many poor families, there is a disconnect between the

locations of new jobs for entry-level and low-skilled workers and their residences. This is

usually discussed as a problem for inner cities. It is argued that the spatial mismatch between

central city residential location and suburban job growth has contributed to high unemployment

rates and social and economic isolation of inner city residents, who have no easy way to travel

between home and work.35 Research on inner cities has focused on the distance that

minorities—particularly African Americans—have to travel to get to jobs located in suburban

areas. However, the increasingly long commutes in central Appalachia suggest that spatial

mismatch is also an acute problem for rural areas.36 In Appalachia, the mismatch is most

evident in the location of poor households and areas of job growth.

In Appalachia and in rural areas across the country, labor market conditions in economically

depressed areas have created challenges for families making the transition from welfare to

work.37 Welfare caseloads have dropped dramatically since the enactment of 1996 welfare

reform legislation. In West Virginia, for example, there was a 65 percent drop in the number of

public assistance recipients between 1996 and 2000.38 At the same time, labor force

participation rates in the Appalachian region have increased—particularly among families with

young children. In Appalachia, there was an 8 percent increase in the share of children under

age 6 with all parents in the labor force, compared with a 6 percent increase nationwide. In

central Appalachia—where a relatively large proportion of families had relied on public

assistance—the proportion of children with all parents in the labor force increased by 16

percent. Although welfare reform played an important role in rising labor force participation

rates, other factors also contributed to the increase, including the strong U.S. economy and the

expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided financial incentives to low-income

working families.39

18
The employment growth in Appalachia has contributed to higher incomes for many lowincome families, but the longer commutes—especially in central Appalachia—indicate that the

transition from welfare to work has come at a high cost for some families.

Limited Employment Opportunities

In order to successfully move families from welfare to work, there has to be sufficient job

opportunities in local areas to absorb the demand. In Appalachia, the limited employment

opportunities in rural communities present a major obstacle for poor families. Families are

further limited by low levels of human capital—especially low levels of education and lack of

job skills—that restrict the types of jobs that are available to them.40 In this context, many

families in Appalachia adapted to the loss of public assistance income in the 1990s by seeking

employment outside local labor markets, resulting in longer commutes.

The 1990s was a period of unprecedented economic growth in the United States. In the U.S.

as a whole, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of jobs during the 1990s. In

Appalachia, there was a 19 percent increase in jobs, but most of the economic expansion took

place in the southern region—especially in counties bordering the Atlanta Metropolitan Area.41

A map of job growth in the region during the 1990s indicates that the fastest growth

occurred in the areas near the border of the Appalachian region—particularly in counties to the

west of central and southern Appalachia (see Map 4). This geographic imbalance in the creation

of jobs created conditions for longer commutes from areas of economic distress (in more rural

parts of Appalachia) to areas of economic growth (in metropolitan areas within Appalachia or

bordering the region).

Although the average travel time to work increased during the 1990s, there was not a

significant increase in the proportion of people who lived in Appalachia but who commuted to

jobs outside the region. The proportion working outside Appalachia increased from 8 percent in

1990 to 9 percent in 2000. There was an increase in the proportion of people in Appalachia who

worked outside their counties of residence, however, from 25 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in

2000. In Distressed counties, the proportion who commuted to jobs in other counties increased

from 30 percent to 35 percent during the 1990s.

19
Housing Costs

Another obstacle for poor families in Appalachia—and a reason why families are willing to

drive long distances to work—is the lack of affordable housing in areas with the most job

growth. The high cost of housing is a growing problem in Appalachia and throughout the

United States. High housing costs strain the finances of many homeowners but is more of a

burden for renters, who tend to have lower incomes. Housing affordability is not just an issue in

Appalachia’s Distressed counties; it is also a critical issue in Southern Appalachia because of

the rapid population and employment growth in the region, which has created high demand for

adequate and affordable rental housing.

Despite the economic prosperity of the late 1990s, over one-fourth of all U.S. households—

and two-fifths of renters—lacked affordable housing in 2000. The U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development considers housing “affordable” if total expenses (rent or mortgage

payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other related payments) account for less than 30

20

Map 4

Percent Change in Number of Employees, 1990 to 2000

Boundary of Appalachia

Percent change

50 percent or greater increase

25 percent to 49.9 percent

Less than 25 percent increase

Decrease in employment

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 County Business Patterns Data.
percent of total household income. Paying 30 percent or more of income on housing may leave

insufficient resources to cover other basic expenses, including food and health care. In this

report, a 30 percent cutoff is used to indicate a lack of affordable housing.42

In Appalachia, just under one-fourth of households (24 percent) lacked affordable housing

in 2000, compared with 29 percent nationwide (see Table 8). Between 1990 and 2000, the

percentage of households spending at least 30 percent of their income on housing increased

only slightly, from 23 percent to 24 percent. There was little variation in housing affordability

across Appalachia’s economic areas or between metro and nonmetro counties.

About 19 percent of Appalachia’s homeowners lacked affordable housing in 2000, while

renters were twice as likely to have a high housing burden (38 percent). Higher costs for renters

reflect the lower-incomes of this group relative to families that own their homes. The burden for

renters was highest in Appalachia’s Distressed counties, where 42 percent of households had

high housing costs. Nationwide, there was a similar disparity, with 22 percent of homeowners

lacking affordable housing, compared with 40 percent of renters.43

Table 8

Trends in Housing Affordability in the United States and Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Percent change

Spend 30% Spend 30% in households

or more or more with high

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent cost burdens

U.S. 21,249 28.2 25,014 28.6 17.7

Non-Appalachian U.S. 19,889 28.6 23,340 29.0 17.3

Metropolitan areas 17,375 29.6 20,361 29.9 17.2

Nonmetropolitan areas 2,514 23.5 2,979 24.0 18.5

Appalachia 1,360 22.8 1,674 24.4 23.1

Metropolitan areas 849 22.7 1,050 24.5 23.7

Nonmetropolitan areas 511 23.0 624 24.2 22.1

Distressed 156 25.4 173 25.5 11.3

Attainment 228 24.0 282 25.3 23.4

Competitive 116 21.4 161 23.6 39.0

Transitional 860 22.2 1,058 24.1 23.0

North 681 23.1 781 24.7 14.7

South 569 22.3 760 24.0 33.7

Central 111 23.4 133 24.5 20.1

Note: Data exclude households reporting no income or a net loss in 1989 and 1999. 

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

21
The share of renters who lacked affordable housing decreased slightly during the 1990s,

from 41 percent to 40 percent nationwide, and from 39 percent to 38 percent in Appalachia.

However, costs for owners increased during the 1990s, from 20 percent to 22 percent

nationwide, and from 15 percent to 19 percent in Appalachia.

Despite the high cost of housing in parts of Appalachia, the actual value of homes in the

region is quite low. In 2000, the mean value of homes in Appalachia was $106,000 compared

with $159,000 in the nation as a whole, and $173,000 in U.S. metropolitan areas. In central

Appalachia, the mean value of homes in 2000 was only $79,000.44

A map of housing costs in the region shows that mean home values in the majority of

Appalachian counties are in the $50,000-$100,000 range (see Map 5). However, there is a ring

of counties around the Appalachian region where mean home values are significantly higher—

in the $100,000 to $150,000 range. Higher home values in these areas creates an economic

barrier for low-income families that would consider moving outside the Appalachian region,

and are likely contributing to longer commutes among low-income families.

22

Map 5

Mean Home Values in Appalachia, 2000

Boundary of Appalachia

Mean home values, 2000

$125,000 or more

$100,000 to $124,999

$75,000 to $99,999

Less than $75,000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Vehicle Ownership

Buying and owning a private vehicle can be a major expense for low-income families.45 In

addition to the fees and interest rates associated with financing a vehicle, commuters have to

pay for fuel, maintenance, insurance, tolls, and parking fees. Given the high costs of car

ownership and maintenance, there are many families in Appalachia that do not own or have

access to private vehicles. In the absence of public transportation, these families may be

completely cut off from employment opportunities outside their local areas. Thus, while long

commutes may be a burden for some, others face the more basic problem of finding a means of

getting to work each day. For people not in the labor force, the lack of access to transportation

may be the main barrier in moving from welfare to work. 

Census data indicate that most households in Appalachia do have access to vehicles. In

2000, the share of households without a car was actually lower in Appalachia (9 percent) than

in the U.S. as a whole (10 percent) (see Table 9). The U.S. average is slightly higher because of

the availability of public transportation systems in New York and other large cities. In

Appalachia, private vehicles are often the only means of transportation.

Table 9

Trends in Housing Units Without Access to a Vehicle in the United States and

Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Housing units Housing units Percent change

with no cars with no cars in homes

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent without cars

U.S. 10,602 11.5 10,861 10.3 2.4

Non-Appalachian U.S. 9,717 11.6 10,063 10.4 3.6

Metropolitan areas 8,399 12.2 8,776 11.1 4.5

Nonmetropolitan areas 1,318 8.6 1,287 7.4 -2.4

Appalachia 885 11.1 798 8.9 -9.8

Metropolitan areas 521 11.3 467 8.9 -10.5

Nonmetropolitan areas 364 10.9 332 8.8 -8.8

Distressed 138 14.0 120 11.0 -12.8

Attainment 145 13.5 130 10.4 -10.4

Competitive 55 7. 9 56 6.6 1.3

Transitional 547 10.6 492 8.5 -10.0

North 479 12.7 413 10.4 -13.8

South 307 9.0 295 7.1 -3.8

Central 99 13.1 90 10.5 -9.1

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

23
The proportion of households without access to a vehicle is highest in Appalachia’s

Distressed areas (see Map 6). This area includes many of the same counties with long travel

times to work, high poverty rates, and high unemployment rates. Overall, about 11 percent of

households in Appalachia’s Distressed counties do not have access to private vehicles,

compared with 10 percent in the northern region and only 7 percent in the southern region. The

ARC county with the highest proportion of households without a vehicle is Holmes County,

Ohio (31 percent), which is home to a large Amish community.

Telephone Availability

Telephone access is also critically important to low-income families because it can put

people in contact with family members, potential job opportunities, and social networks. A report

from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that low-income households were much more likely

to be without telephones than higher-income households.46 The lack of telephone access in some

areas can also complicate efforts to provide social and medical services to needy families.

24

Map 6

Percent of Households Without a Vehicle in Appalachia, 2000

Households without vehicle

15 percent or more

10 percent to 14.9 percent

5 percent to 9.9 percent

Less than 5 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Between 1990 and 2000, there was widespread improvement in telephone access in homes

in Appalachia and across the United States.47 Overall, the number of housing units without a

phone has dropped from 569,000 in 1990 to 296,000 in 2000—a 48 percent decrease (see Table

10). In 1990, about 7 percent of Appalachian housing units—and 15 percent of units in

Distressed areas—did not have access to a phone. By 2000, only 3 percent of occupied housing

units in Appalachia—and 7 percent in Distressed areas—did not have a telephone. Nationwide,

the share of homes without a phone fell from 5 percent to 2 percent during the 1990s. 

In 2000, Holmes County, Ohio, had the highest percentage of homes without a telephone

(28 percent). Other counties with high proportions of homes without phones included Clay

County, Kentucky (18 percent), Lee County, Kentucky (15 percent), and Noxubee County,

Mississippi (14 percent). In 1990, there were 221 counties in Appalachia—more than half of all

counties in the region—where at least 10 percent of homes lacked telephone access. In 2000,

there were only 23 counties in Appalachia that exceeded this threshold.

Table 10

Trends in Housing Units Without Access to a Telephone in the United States and

Appalachia, 1990 to 2000

1990 2000

Housing Housing Percent 

units with units with change in

no phones no phones homes without

Area (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent access to phone

U.S. 4,817 5.2 2,571 2.4 -46.6

Non-Appalachian U.S. 4,249 5.1 2,275 2.4 -46.5

Metropolitan areas 2,942 4.3 1,560 2.0 -47.0

Nonmetropolitan areas 1,307 8.6 715 4.1 -45.3

Appalachia 569 7.2 296 3.3 -48.0

Metropolitan Appalachia 232 5.0 117 2.3 -49.3

Nonmetropolitan Appalachia 337 10.2 178 4.7 -47.1

Distressed 146 14.8 75 6.9 -48.4

Attainment 35 3.2 18 1.4 -49.1

Competitive 40 5.7 20 2.4 -48.9

Transitional 348 6.7 183 3.1 -47.6

North 179 4.7 90 2.2 -49.9

South 279 8.2 149 3.6 -46.6

Central 111 14.7 57 6.7 -48.3

Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

25
These census data do not indicate whether households lack telephone service because

families cannot afford to pay the monthly phone bill, or because phone services are simply not

available in their communities. Map 7 highlights census tracts in Appalachia with low rates of

telephone access. Unusually low coverage rates in a community (e.g., less than 85 percent) may

indicate that phone services are not available to all residents.

26

Map 7

Percent of Households in Appalachia with Telephone Access, 2000

Households with phone access

95 percent or more

90 percent to 94.9 percent

85 percent to 89.9 percent

Less than 85 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
CONCLUSION

For many families in Appalachia, the 1990s brought higher incomes, greater self-reliance,

better housing conditions, and brighter economic futures. However, the long commutes in

economically distressed areas in Appalachia indicate that many families in rural areas face

challenges in their efforts to build economic security. Hundreds of thousands of households in

Appalachia have been removed from the welfare rolls, but there are not enough job

opportunities in local areas to absorb the demand. At the same time, the high cost of housing in

areas of job growth prevents many families from moving outside the Appalachian region. These

factors have contributed to a growing spatial mismatch between the places that poor and lowincome families live and work, with possible negative effects on the time that parents spend

with children, the potential earnings of low-income workers, and the social and familial bonds

in rural areas.

Housing conditions have improved dramatically in Appalachia, but the growing number of

mobile and vacant homes point to persistent economic problems—particularly in Appalachia’s

central region. For many measures of housing quality, including plumbing adequacy, vacancy

rates, home values, and access to vehicles and telephones, Appalachia continues to lag behind

the rest of the United States. Housing quality is worse for households headed by blacks and

Hispanics, and overcrowding is becoming a serious problem for the region’s growing Hispanic

population. In addition, none of the risk factors covered in this report—housing costs, housing

quality, overcrowding, affordability, or isolation—are mutually exclusive. Many households

experience multiple problems that contribute to economic hardship and lower standards of

living in the region. Renters are at particular risk because of their lower incomes.48

What are the potential solutions to these problems? In inner cities, efforts have focused on

providing work supports (public transportation, child care, job training) to link people to areas

of job growth in the suburbs.49 However, these types of supports are more difficult to

implement in sparsely populated rural areas, and the lack of public transportation presents a

major barrier for households without access to private vehicles. Promoting homeownership, by

helping families build credit and secure loans, is another strategy used to strengthen families

and build family assets in urban settings. However, high homeownership rates may be

contributing to the economic isolation of households in Appalachia by discouraging the outmigration of low-income families.50

27
Policy initiatives in Appalachia need to be place-based to target the specific needs of the

people who live in this unique part of the country. Here are some of the specific steps that could

be taken to improve the situation of families in the region: 

1. Provide affordable rental housing for low-income families, especially minorities 

(to help low-income families move to areas closer to areas of job growth).

2. Provide affordable child care (to assist parents who travel long distances to work 

each day).

3. Assist families in building credit to help them secure vehicle loans.

4. Improve the quality of housing stock in the region by rehabilitating vacant homes.

5. Enact “lifeline” programs to provide telephone service to low-income families at 

discounted rates.51

More broadly, low-income families in Appalachia need better resources to help them make

the transition from welfare to work. Program flexibility is needed to allow decisionmakers to

implement and adapt policies for local communities. Although efforts may not have an

immediate impact on housing conditions and commuting in the region, they can help lowincome families build assets and secure the income they need to make decisions about where to

live, work, and raise children.

28
Appendix 1: 

Counties With the Longest Average Travel Times to Work, 2000

Rank County Travel Time to Work

1 Elliott County, Kentucky 48.7

2 Pike County, Pennsylvania 46.0

3 Mathews County, Virginia 45.8

4 Clay County, West Virginia 45.0

5 Park County, Colorado 44.8

6 Richmond County, New York 43.9

7 Kings County, New York 43.2

8 Bronx County, New York 43.0

9 Queens County, New York 42.2

9 San Jacinto County, Texas 42.2

11 Greene County, Mississippi 42.1

12 Amelia County, Virginia 41.5

13 Elbert County, Colorado 41.1

14 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska 40.7

15 Calhoun County, Illinois 40.4

16 Calvert County, Maryland 39.8

17 Hampshire County, West Virginia 39.7

18 Charles County, Maryland 39.3

19 Lincoln County, West Virginia 39.2

20 Paulding County, Georgia 39.1

20 Warren County, Virginia 39.1

Note: Counties in bold type are located in Appalachia.

Source: 2000 Census.

29
Appendix 2:

Counties With the Highest Proportion of People Traveling 90 Minutes or More to

Work, 2000

Rank County Percent 90 Minutes or More

1 Pike County, Pennsylvania 18.7

2 Elliott County, Kentucky 16.9

3 Mathews County, Virginia 15.8

4 Magoffin County, Kentucky 14.4

5 Richmond County, New York 13.8

6 Westmoreland County, Virginia 13.1

7 Monroe County, Pennsylvania 13.0

8 San Jacinto County, Texas 12.2

9 Rains County, Texas 12.0

9 Greene County, Mississippi 12.0

11 Calhoun County, Illinois 11.9

11 Vinton County, Ohio 11.9

13 Adams County, Ohio 11.8

14 Lee County, Kentucky 11.4

15 Clay County, West Virginia 11.1

15 Culpeper County, Virginia 11.1

15 La Salle County, Texas 11.1

18 Page County, Virginia 10.9

19 Elk County, Kansas 10.8

19 Perquimans County, North Carolina 10.8

21 Washington County, Missouri 10.6

22 Kitsap County, Washington 10.5

23 Catahoula Parish, Louisiana 10.4

23 Robertson County, Kentucky 10.4

25 Breathitt County, Kentucky 10.3

25 Henderson County, Texas 10.3

27 La Salle Parish, Louisiana 10.2

28 Newton County, Texas 10.1

28 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska 10.1

30 Morgan County, Kentucky 10.0

Note: Counties in bold type are located in Appalachia.

Source: 2000 Census.

30
Appendix 3: 

Counties With Long Travel Times to Work and High Poverty Rates, 2000

Rank County Average Travel Time to Work Poverty Rate

1 Elliott County, Kentucky 48.7 20.6

2 Clay County, West Virginia 45.0 21.6

3 Kings County, New York 43.2 20.0

4 Bronx County, New York 43.0 23.5

5 Lincoln County, West Virginia 39.2 21.8

6 Magoffin County, Kentucky 38.5 26.8

7 Catahoula Parish, Louisiana 38.3 22.0

8 Calhoun County, West Virginia 38.0 20.0

9 Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi 37.2 22.0

10 Lowndes County, Alabama 36.3 23.9

11 Hancock County, Georgia 36.2 22.7

12 Menifee County, Kentucky 36.1 22.8

13 Lawrence County, Kentucky 36.0 23.5

14 St. Helena Parish, Louisiana 35.7 21.2

15 Lewis County, Kentucky 35.7 22.2

16 Lee County, Kentucky 35.4 23.3

17 Wyoming County, West Virginia 35.3 20.1

18 Mora County, New Mexico 35.1 20.2

19 Jackson County, Kentucky 35.0 23.2

20 Estill County, Kentucky 34.9 20.9

21 Wilkinson County, Mississippi 34.1 27.4

22 Wolfe County, Kentucky 33.8 26.4

23 Perry County, Alabama 33.7 26.1

24 Breathitt County, Kentucky 33.6 24.9

25 Leslie County, Kentucky 33.5 24.6

26 Kemper County, Mississippi 33.5 20.6

27 Morgan County, Kentucky 33.2 21.4

28 Jefferson County, Mississippi 33.0 26.5

29 Bienville Parish, Louisiana 32.9 20.7

30 Evangeline Parish, Louisiana 32.7 24.4

31 Hancock County, Tennessee 32.7 22.7

32 Walthall County, Mississippi 32.6 21.7

33 McDowell County, West Virginia 32.6 27.4

34 Franklin Parish, Louisiana 32.5 22.1

35 Grundy County, Tennessee 32.2 20.5

36 Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana 31.8 20.6

37 Williamsburg County, South Carolina 31.5 21.8

38 Webster County, West Virginia 31.5 24.1

39 Wilcox County, Alabama 31.3 28.5

40 Clay County, Kentucky 31.2 28.4

41 Red River Parish, Louisiana 31.0 23.0

42 Wayne County, Mississippi 30.8 20.2

43 Claiborne County, Mississippi 30.7 24.5

44 Tallahatchie County, Mississippi 30.5 24.4

45 Gilmer County, West Virginia 30.2 20.6

46 De Soto Parish, Louisiana 30.1 20.0

Note: Counties in bold type are located in Appalachia.

Source: 2000 Census.

31
Appendix 4: 

Counties With Biggest Increases in Average Travel Time to Work, 1990 to 2000

Rank County Change in Average Travel Time

1 Pike County, Pennsylvania 18.5

2 Golden Valley County, Montana 15.5

3 Calhoun County, West Virginia 14.4

3 Clay County, West Virginia 14.4

5 La Salle Parish, Louisiana 13.6

6 Perry County, Alabama 13.0

7 Mathews County, Virginia 12.9

7 Elliott County, Kentucky 12.9

9 Monroe County, Pennsylvania 12.6

10 Morgan County, Ohio 12.5

11 Sterling County, Texas 12.0

12 Catahoula Parish, Louisiana 11.7

12 Roberts County, Texas 11.7

12 Roger Mills County, Oklahoma 11.7

12 Wheeler County, Oregon 11.7

16 Choctaw County, Alabama 11.6

16 hackelford County, Texas 11.6

18 Westmoreland County, Virginia 11.5

19 Wayne County, Missouri 11.4

19 Franklin Parish, Louisiana 11.4

19 Catron County, New Mexico 11.4

20 Pocahontas County, West Virginia 11.3

Note: Counties in bold type are located in Appalachia.

Source: 1990 Census and 2000 Census.

32
References and Notes

1 The Appalachian region is made up of 410 counties identified by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The

region covers all of West Virginia, as well as southern New York; most of Pennsylvania; southeastern Ohio; the western

portions of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas; the eastern portions of Tennessee and Kentucky; the northern portions

of Georgia and Alabama; and northeastern Mississippi.

2 As defined by the ARC, the Appalachian region is divided into three major subregions. Northern Appalachia contains

every Appalachian county in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio, as well as 46 of West Virginia’s 55 counties.

Central Appalachia includes West Virginia’s nine southernmost counties, all of Appalachian Kentucky, the southwestern

tip of Virginia, and the northwest part of Tennessee. Finally, southern Appalachia includes most of the Appalachian

portion of Virginia and Tennessee, as well as the entire Appalachian sections of the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and

Mississippi.

3 Counties in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas are categorized based on 1999 definitions from the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget.

4 The Appalachian Regional Commission has developed a system that classifies Appalachian counties based on four

categories of economic development (Distressed, Transitional, Competitive, and Attainment). Each of these categories is

based on three indicators of economic viability: per capita income, poverty, and unemployment. In this report, the main

focus is on Appalachia’s central region, where most of the area’s Distressed counties are located.

5 James Mikesell and George Wallace, “Unique Housing Challenges Face Rural America and Its Low-Income Workers,”

Rural Conditions and Trends 11, no. 2: 75-79, accessed online at www.ers.usda.gov/ Publications/RCAT/Rcat112/

rcat112l.pdf, on Oct. 1, 2003.

6 PRB analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

7 Racial and ethnic categories used in this analysis include non-Hispanic, white (alone); black or African American

(alone); and Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for other racial groups are not considered

because of their small numbers in the Appalachian region. 

8 Nicolas P. Retsinas and Eric S. Belsky, ed., Low-Income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal

(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), accessed online at www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/

savingsforthepoor/low_income_homeownership.htm, on Sept. 23, 2002. 

9 Sandra Fleishman, “2nd-Quarter Foreclosure Rates Highest in 30 Years,” The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2002.

10 Public Law 87-181, § 2.

11 Housing Assistance Council, “Housing Problems in Central Appalachia,” accessed online at

www.ruralhome.org/pubs/infoshts/appalachia.htm, on Oct. 5, 2003.

12 Complete plumbing facilities include hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. All three

facilities must be located inside the house, apartment, or mobile home, but not necessarily in the same room. Housing

units are classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities when any one of the three facilities is not present.

13 C. Theodore Koebel, “A Profile of Manufactured Housing in Virginia,” in Perceptions of Manufactured Housing in

Virginia, Julia O. Beamish and Rosemary Carucci Goss, ed., (Blacksburg, VA: College of Human Resources and

Education, Virginia Tech, December 2000): 2.

14 PRB analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

33
15 Suzanne Minichillo Farmer, “Observations and Recommendations for Distressed Appalachian Counties: A Discussion

of Children, Education, and Families in Hancock County, Tennessee and Owsley County, Kentucky,” accessed online at:

www.uky.edu/RGS/AppalCenter/instruction/courses/gs600/gs600—Minichillo-Farmer.pdf, on Dec. 22, 2003.

16 Housing Assistance Council, “Rural Rental Housing Supply,” accessed online at www.ruralhome.org/pubs/

hsganalysis/snrh/rental/supply.htm, on Oct. 1, 2003.

17 Leslie A. Whitener, “Housing Poverty in Rural Areas Greater for Racial and Ethnic Minorities,” Rural America 15, no.

2 (May 2000).

18 For each unit, rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation rooms, enclosed

porches suitable for year-round use, and lodgers’ rooms.

19 PRB analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

20 Dorie Turner, “The Changing South,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, Aug. 17, 2003.

21 PRB analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

22 This measure does not use the same definition of severely inadequate homes as that of the American Housing Survey,

which defines a home as having severe physical problems based on any serious problems with plumbing, heating,

electricity, upkeep, or hallways. 

23 Koebel, “A Profile of Manufactured Housing in America”: 2

24 Housing Assistance Council, “Why Housing Matters: HAC’s 2000 Report on the State of the Nation’s Rural Housing,”

accessed online at www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/SNRH/why/whyhousingmatters.pdf, on Oct. 1, 2003.

25 U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3, H76, “Median Value (Dollars) for Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units,”

and H82, “Median Value (Dollars) for Mobile Homes,” accessed online at http://factfinder.census.gov, on Oct. 5, 2003.

26 Kimberly Vermeer and Josephine Louie, The Future of Manufactured Housing (Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for

Housing Studies, Harvard University, 1997): 25. 

27 Housing Assistance Council, Taking Stock of Rural People, Poverty, and Housing for the 21st Century: Central

Appalachia, accessed online at www.ruralhome.org/pubs/hsganalysis/ts2000/index.htm, on Oct. 2, 2003.

28 AARP, National Survey of Mobile Home Owners (Washington, DC: AARP, 1999).

29 Roger Alford, “Town Welcomes Mobile Homes; Even City Hall Is in One: Manufactured Housing Popular in Eastern

Ky.,” The Associated Press, June 8, 2002.

30 Vacant units identified by the Census Bureau are subdivided into categories, including those for rent, for sale, for

seasonal use, for migrant workers, and other vacant units. In this report, vacant homes intended for seasonal use are

excluded.

31 Mark Ferenchik, “Looking for Leaders: Isolated W.Va. County Battles a Legacy of Neglect, Shame,” The Columbus

Dispatch, Sept. 30, 1999.

32 Robert W. Burchell et al., Costs of Sprawl-2000 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002), accessed online at

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-c.pdf, on July 1, 2003.

34
33 Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster,

2000).

34 Glenn V. Fuguitt et al., “Recent Population Trends in Nonmetropolitan Cities and Villages: From the Turnaround,

Through Reversal to the Rebound,” Working Paper no. 97-12 (Madison, WI: Center for Demography and Ecology,

University of Wisconsin, 1997).

35 John Kain, “Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan Decentralization,” Quarterly Journal of

Economics 82 (1968): 175-97. 

36 The spatial mismatch of jobs and residences in rural areas is also discussed in Monica G. Fisher and Bruce A. Weber,

The Importance of Place in Welfare Reform: Common Challenges for Central Cities and Remote-Rural Areas

(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Rural Policy Research

Institute, June 2002).

37 Fisher and Weber, The Importance of Place in Welfare Reform.

38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, accessed online at

www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/aug-dec.htm on Dec. 22, 2003.

39 Robert A. Moffitt, “From Welfare to Work: What the Evidence Shows,” Welfare Reform and Beyond Policy Brief no.

13, accessed online at www.brookings.org/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/pb13.htm, on July 1, 2003.

40 Cynthia Rogers and Brian Cushing, “Socio-Economic Review of Appalachia: The Appalachian Labor Force,” paper

commissioned by the Appalachian Regional Commission (1996). 

41 PRB analysis of the Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns data for 1990 and 2000.

42 Data on housing costs as a percentage of income exclude households reporting no income or a net loss in 1999. 

43 PRB analysis of data from the 2000 Census.

44 Data on the mean value of owner-occupied homes include only one-family houses on less than 10 acres without a

business or medical office on the property.

45 Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003 KIDS COUNT Data Book (Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003): 12.

46 William O’Hare, “Disconnected Kids: Children Without a Phone at Home,” KIDS COUNT Snapshot (September

2001), accessed online at www.aecf.org/kidscount/snapshot.pdf, on Oct. 2, 2003.

47 The 1990 census question asked about the presence of a telephone in the home. In the 2000 census question, however,

just having a telephone was not enough. The focus instead was on the presence of telephone service in the home-service

through which occupants could make and receive calls.

48 Housing Assistance Council, “Rental Housing in Rural America,” accessed online at www.ruralhome.org/pubs/

infoshts/RuralRental.pdf, on Oct. 4, 2003. 

49 Fisher and Weber, The Importance of Place in Welfare Reform.

50 C. Theodore Koebel and Patricia Renneckar, “Socioeconomic and Housing Trends in Central Appalachia,” paper

prepared for the Appalachian Housing Summit, Mountain Lake, Va., April 25, 2002, accessed online at

www.arch.vt.edu/caus/ research/vchr/pdfreports/AppalachiaReport.pdf, on Oct. 5, 2003.

51 See O’Hare, “Disconnected Kids: Children Without a Phone at Home.”

35