1 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Accounting for Rents and Net Implicit Rental Income in a 

SPM-like Measure Using Rental Equivalence for Owneroccupied Housing

Thesia I. Garner and Jake Schild

Chief Researcher, Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

2023 FCSM Research and Policy Conference

October 26, 2023 

(updated February 13, 2024)

Thanks to Chris Mackie (NAS), Shelly ver Ploeg (USDA), and David Johnson (NAS) for their comments
2 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Research Study

◼ Objective

Produce poverty measures that account for implicit income which homeowners have but is not 

available to renters

Use Consumer Expenditures Survey (CE) data as CPS ASEC does not collect sufficient data

◼ Background

SPM current

CNSTAT Panel recommendations and implications

◼ Methods

For 2021, examine the impact of accounting for owner-occupied housing 

– Thresholds – FMR & reported rental equivalence

– Resources – include implicit resources for owners

– Poverty rates

Start with SPM threshold and resource measure assumptions
3 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Current Estimation of SPM Thresholds

◼ 5 years of CE Interview data, lagged by one year 

◼ FCSUti out of pocket (OOP) spending + in-kind benefits

◼ Estimation: CUs with at least one child

◼ Reference: CUs with 2 adults & 2 children

◼ Rank reference CUs based on FCSUti to produce means 

within median (M) 47th-53rd percentile range 

◼ Produce 3 thresholds based on group specific (S+U)

◼ Apply 3- parameter equivalence scale and geo adjust 

(S+U) to produce thresholds for others

FCSUtii,2021 = (Fi,qyr+Ci,qyr + Si,qyr+ Ui,qyr + tii,qyr) ∗ 4 ∗

FCSUTI_CPI2021

FCSUti_CPIyr

SPMj,2021 = 0.83 ∗ 1.2 ∗ FCSUtiM,2021 − SUM,2021 + SUM,j,2021 ,

where j = owner with mortgage

,

owner without mortgage

,

renter

SPMj,g,2021= [(αj *MRIg) +(1- αj)]*SPMj,2021

SUM,j

SPMj,2021

= αj = housing share of 2A+2C SPMj,2021 thresholds
4 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

2 Adult-2 Child SPM Thresholds Based on FCSUti

with In-kind Benefits

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Owners with mortgages

Renters

Owners without mortgages

NOTE: 2009-2018 historic thresholds based on 2021 methods (https://www.bls.gov/pir/spm/spm_historic_thresholds.htm );2019 revised-2022 as previously published
5 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Consistency between Thresholds and Resources for Renters–

Introduced with 2020 SPM Thresholds

Renters – 1 threshold

Value of the “flow of services” from 

rental housing, the “market value” =

• What is paid out of pocket

• In-kind rental subsidy

Owners – 2 thresholds

What is paid out of pocket (mortgage 

principal, interest, property taxes, homeowners insurance, M&R expenses)

◼ Renters can use 

Money SPM resources

In-kind rent subsidy

◼ Owners can use 

Money resources

Threshold: 

Represents 

a “needs 

standard”

Resources: 

What can be 

used to meet 

“needs?”

consistent consistent
6 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Inconsistency within SPM Thresholds

Renters – 1 threshold

Value of the “flow of services” from 

rental housing, the “market value” =

• What is paid out of pocket

• In-kind rental subsidy

Owners – 2 thresholds

What is paid out-of-pocket (mortgage 

principal, interest, property taxes, homeowners insurance, M&R expenses)

◼ Renters can use 

Money SPM resources

In-kind rent subsidy

◼ Owners can use 

Money resources

Threshold: 

Represents 

a “needs 

standard”

Resources: 

What can be 

used to meet 

“needs?

consistent

inconsistent

consistent
7 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Panel’s Critique of Current Treatment of Housing in Thresholds 

“...less conceptually clear and transparent than it could be, and there are four primary concerns 

with the current calculation.” 

◼ Related to estimation

1. Three thresholds based on OOP spending + in-kind renter benefits 

➢PROBLEM: tenure choice is endogenous (at least to some extent) and all three groups face the same basic need for 

shelter (could also be related to “concept” : value of flow of services from housing so treat owners and renters same)

2. Geographic adjustment to housing (S+U) components of thresholds using MRI_Census: SPM groups 

together all nonmetropolitan areas in a state 

➢PROBLEM: ignores what may be large costs differentials across counties

◼ Related to concept

3. SPM does little to adjust housing costs for basic quality (but what about FCti?)

4. Shelter needs do not draw on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) 

Fair Market Rents, FMRs as cost of decent, affordable housing each year in every local market in U.S.
8 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

CNSTAT Panel Recommendations Related to Housing

(note added 10-31-23)

Component Topic Recommendation

Thresholds

Shelter represents rents (concept)

5.1 Housing to be represented by shelter costs of renters only; 

based on HUD Fair Market Rents (gross rents=shelter rent + 

utilities) (NOTE: CE research on rental equivalence for owners)

No distinction of thresholds by 

housing group (estimation)

5.3 Discontinue separate by housing group; account for lower 

spending by owners without mortgages in resources

Geographic adjustment (estimation) 5.5 Apply geographic adjustment for housing based on FMRs for 

MSAs and nonmetro county level

Resources

Add implicit rental income in owner 

resources (concept)

5.6 Census Bureau: include implicit rental income for owners in 

resources (rental equivalence or FMR)

Subtract owner expenses related to 

homeownership (concept)

5.7 Census Bureau: subtract owner mortgage interest payments, 

property taxes, insurance, and other maintenance expenses;

cap owner expenses at rental equivalence so net implicit (gross) 

rental income cannot be negative; when using FMRs, owner 

expenses within 37th-43rd percentile of owner expenses

NOTE: CNSTAT Panel Recommendation for owners based on the economics literature and international 

standards for national accounts: owners are both renters and enterprises (landlords)
9 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Valuing Shelter/Housing in Thresholds 

◼ Flow of services

▪ Market rents

▪ Based on all rental units

▪ Based on select rental units

▪ Reported rental equivalence

▪ Imputed rents (regression)

◼ User costs of capital

▪ Market value of home

▪ Nominal mortgage rate

▪ Depreciation, insurance, M&R

▪ Property tax rate

▪ Income tax rate

▪ Expected appreciation rate

◼ Return to investment

▪ Gross implicit rent =

capitalization rate*market value of home

FMR – estimates of 40th percentile of gross 

rent (= shelter rent + utilities) for standard 

quality* units within a metropolitan area or 

nonmetropolitan county

REQ - If someone were to rent this (including part 

of the property currently being used for business, 

farming, or rented/home today) how much do 

you think it would rent for monthly, unfurnished 

and without utilities?

• Standard quality as defined by HUD. See: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html

• Generally standard quality refers to a typical rental unit as one having 

 complete plumbing, a kitchen, meals not included in rent, 

 not built in the past two years, and the unit is on ten acres or less. 
10 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Threshold Choice Has Implications for Resources

◼ Net implicit gross income=

(FMR- “40th percentile” owner expenses)

◼ Net implicit gross income=

(“REQ+U”- owner expenses) 

◼ Net implicit income =

(REQ - owner expenses)

Same FMR (includes utilities) as in 

threshold for household 

REQ - If someone were to rent this 

(including part of the property currently 

being used for business, farming, or 

rented/home today) how much do you 

think it would rent for monthly, 

unfurnished and without utilities?

Thresholds Resources
11 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

CE-Based Research
12 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Research Thresholds for 2021: Parameters

◼ No change from current SPM thresholds

20% multiplier to account for other basic goods and services not in FCSUti

83% of median CE based values (CE based expenditures & rental equivalence)

3-parameter equivalence scale applied to CE based components (same as used for SPM)

Reference unit: consumer units with 2 adults and 2 children

◼ Additional new based on Panel’s recommendations

Expand estimation sample to all consumer units & restrict to CUs with 1 CU per household (our 

choice: exclude CUs living college/university student housing)

3 years of Consumer Expenditure Survey - Interview data 2019Q2-2021Q1 (still lag by 1 year) 

Adjust CE-based expenditures using composite consumer price indexes: FCSUti CPI-U or FCti CPI-U 

Geographic adjustment using: “FMR_HUD” & we produce “MRI_CE” similar to MRI_Census
13 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Research 2-Adult+2-Child Thresholds Based on 

Food, Clothing, Shelter, Utilities, Telephone, & Internet

Median 

FCSUti or FCtii

Owner shelter (S)=reported 

rental equivalence (REQ)

1.2 ∗ (0.83 ∗ FCSUtiyr)

geo adjust (SU) with FMRg

1.2 ∗ (0.83 ∗ FCSUtiyr)

geo adjust (SU) with MRI_CEg

(Shelter + Utilities)=FMRg,j 1.2 ∗ (0.83 ∗ FCtiyr + FMRyr,n,2br)

geo adjust implicitly with FMRg,j

NOTE: for other sized thresholds: 3-parameter equivalence scale applied to CE based components; FMRs are household specific based on number of 

adults and children and composition by gender
14 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

FMRs Assignment to Households to Produce Thresholds and 

FMR-based Resources for 2021

*Thanks for Kalee Burns at Census Bureau for sending FMRs by county/state for 2021.

Adults Same 

generation

Number of 

children

Gender of 

children

Bedrooms 

assigned

1 n/a 0 n/a 0

1 n/a 1 Either M/F 2

1 n/a 2 Same 

gender

2

1 n/a 2 Different 

genders

3

2 Yes 0 n/a 1

2 No 0 n/a 2

2 Yes 1 Either M/F 2

2 No 1 Either M/F 3

2 Yes 2 Same 

gender

2

2 Yes 2 Different 

genders

3

◼ Monthly gross rent (shelter and utilities) at state-county 

level for each of the following

Studio (0 bedrooms)

1, 2, 3, 4 bedrooms (we assumed same FMR for 5+ 

bedrooms as 4; future will adjust by adjusting 4-

bedroom FMRs by 15%)

◼ CNSTAT Panel recommendation that assignment be 

based on characteristics of estimation sample adults 

and children (see page 74)

◼ Assignment we make also based on HUD guidelines 

regarding gender and generation of adults

◼ NOTE: FMR assignment is based on household 

characteristics for resources as well

 NOT on the shelter unit characteristics 

 e.g., 1 person living in a 1-bedroom apartment is assigned the 

FMR for a studio apartment
15 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Geographic Adjustments: Median Gross Rent Indexes and FMR 

Indexes for the Same 65 CE Primary Sampling Units (PSU)

For 2021 MRI Census MRI CE FMR Index

Mean 1.034 1.031 1.081

Standard deviation 0.290 0.285 0.360

Minimum 0.645 0.661 0.671

Maximum 1.975 2.031 2.139

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 1.421 1.458 1.827

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1.057 1.057 1.123

MRI_CE & MRI_Census based on median gross rents for 2 bedrooms, 1 complete bath, full kitchen)

65 are large, self-representing PSUs (set does not include rural PSUs and many non-self-representing PSUs)

60 percent of PSUs have a FMR index that is larger than the MRI CE. 

70 percent of PSUs have a FMR index that is larger than the MRI Census.

All 91 CE PSUs MRI CE FMR Index

Correlation 0.946

Mean 0.941 0.978

Std 0.294 0.351

Min 0.449 0.594

Max 2.031 2.139
16 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Moving to a Single Thresholds for 2021: 2-Adult 2-Child Thresholds

$41,985 

$32,493 

$46,676 

$35,849 

$59,787 

$43,842 $44,424 

$32,552 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

New York-Newark-Jersey City,

NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

MRI_CE Geo Adjusted FMR Index Adjusted (except FCti_FMR)

$37,008

$31,601

$40,999

$34,832

$51,732

$42,981

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

New York-Newark-Jersey

City, NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

All but SPM thresholds based on 3 years of CE, 1 year lagged, & all CUs with 1-CU/HH

$30,834 $33,957 $41,739 

$30,579 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

National

SPM FCSUti (nh)

FCSUti

FCSUti_REQ

FCti_FMR
17 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

SPM Resources Based on CE

◼ CE data from 2021Q2-2022Q1 to represent 2021

◼ CE annual after-tax income (includes SNAP) using TAXSIM 32

◼ Add annualized in-kind transfers: LIHEAP, NSLP, WIC, rent subsidies (cap at threshold “S+U”)

◼ Subtract annualized

Child support paid to another consumer unit

Work-related expenses for earners only

– Childcare expense if both parents are working (Panel rec. but not using: if one parent in school/training or 

disabled)

– 1⁄2 out-of-pocket transportation expenses

– Occupation expenses

– Cap the sum of the above at lowest earnings for a parent

Out-of-pocket health expenditures (we set “negative expenditures” = 0)
18 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Add to SPM Resources: Owner Flow of Services Concept when 

FMR vs. Rental Equivalence in Thresholds 

REQ 

housing 

unit 

specific

Reported 

ownerspecific 

expenses

Net 

implicit 

REQ 

income

FMR 

threshold 

value

Owner w/ & s 

w/ mortgage 

expenses 

around “40th” 

percentile

Net 

implicit 

gross FMR

income

Add to Resources

FRM 

threshold

Rental Eq 

threshold
19 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Add to SPM Resources: Owner Flow of Services Concepts that are 

Comparable – When FMRs in Thresholds

FMR 

threshold 

value

Owner w/ & s 

w/ mortgage 

expenses 

around “40th” 

percentile

Net implicit 

gross FMR 

income

➢ Since FMRs include shelter rent & utilities, 

add utilities to owner rental equivalence 

Gross REQ 

(rent eq + 

owner 

utilities)

Reported 

ownerspecific 

expenses

Net implicit 

gross REQ

income 

(FMR 

capped)

FRM 

threshold

Add to Resources
20 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Components of Owner Implicit Rental Income: 2021

$11,143

$16,685

$12,291

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

National New York-Newark-Jersey

City, NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,

AZ

REQ REQ+U Owner Exps Net Rent Inc Net Gross Rent Inc Cap

(Rental Equivalence +Utilities) – Reported Owner Expenses Fair Market Rents – Owner Expenses Around 40th Percentile

$6,585

$9,340

$7,069

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

National New York-Newark-Jersey

City, NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,

AZ

FMR 40th Pct Owner Exps Net FMR Inc

NOTE: Net Rent Inc would be used with Threshold that includes owner rental equivalence; Net Gross rent Inc Cap would be used with Threshold with FMR for all.

Net rents set to $0 if negative; “owner expenses” (like work-related expenses) could be paid for using other resources
21 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Percent of Owners with Capped Net Rental Income at FMR 

at Top and $0 at Bottom when Thresholds Based on FMRs: 2021

5% 6% 4%

61%

47%

72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

National New York-Newark-Jersey

City, NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Reported Owner Exp > (Rental Equivalence + Utilities)

Net Gross Rent Income > Fair Market Rents

0% 1% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

National New York-Newark-Jersey

City, NY-NJ-PA

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

40th Percentile Owner Exp > Fair Market Rents

red represents losses; gray represent capped at FMR
22 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Population Official and SPM Poverty Rates: 2021

Threshold Official Poverty SPM – 3 Thresholds (OOP IK)

Resource Measure Official Published CE Before Tax Approx. SPM Published CE Approx.*

All 11.6% 11.7% 7.8% 14.1%

Age

Under 18 years 15.3% 16.3% 5.2% 13.6%

18 to 64 years 10.5% 10.3% 7.9% 12.9%

65 years and older 10.3% 10.1% 10.7% 19.0%

Tenure

Owner w/ mortgage 4.2% 4.3% 3.5% 6.9%

Owner w/o mortgage 11.2% 11.7% 8.0% 15.2%

Renter 22.0% 22.1% 13.5% 23.5%

*For 2021, BLS used TAXSIM v. 32 to calculate after tax income; identified errors include underestimation of EIP and CTC
23 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Poverty Rates

5 years of CE, 1 year lag, CUs 

with number of children > 0

1 threshold based on 3 years of CE, 1 year lag, 

all CUs with 1 CU per household

Geographic Rent Index MRI CE MRI CE MRI CE MRI CE N/A N/A

Housing in Threshold OOP IK (3 thrs) OOP IK (1 thrs) OOP IK REQ FMR FMR

Owner Housing in Resource N/A N/A N/A Net Rent 

Inc

FMR Net Gross 

Income

REQ Net Gross 

Income Capped

All 14.1% 14.6% 17.3% 18.9% 16.6% 15.2%

Age

Under 18 years 13.6% 13.6% 16.6% 21.6% 16.0% 15.5%

18 to 64 years 12.9% 13.2% 15.3% 17.7% 15.1% 14.1%

65 years and older 19.0% 21.0% 25.3% 19.7% 22.8% 18.6%

Tenure

Owner w/ mortgage 6.9% 6.8% 8.1% 7.1% 5.7% 5.0%

Owner w/o mortgage 15.2% 18.5% 21.9% 15.0% 16.2% 11.8%

Renter 23.5% 22.6% 26.7% 39.0% 32.6% 32.6%

PSU

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 14.0% 14.1% 16.3% 21.4% 21.8% 20.5%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 10.8% 11.2% 14.7% 15.7% 15.2% 14.3%

Population Research Population Poverty Rates: 2021
24 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Poverty Rates

5 years of CE, 1 year lag, CUs 

with number of children > 0

1 threshold based on 3 years of CE, 1 year lag, 

all CUs with 1 CU per household

Geographic Rent Index MRI CE MRI CE MRI CE N/A N/A

Housing in Threshold OOP IK (3 thrs) OOP IK REQ FMR FMR

Owner Housing in Resource N/A N/A Net Rent 

Inc

FMR Net Gross 

Income

REQ Net Gross 

Income Capped

Renter 23.5% 26.7% 39.0% 32.6% 32.6%

Renter 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5%

Change % of Median so that Renter Poverty Rates Unchanged

Median 

FCSUti or FCtii

Owner shelter 

(S)=reported rental 

equivalence (REQ)

1.2 ∗ (0. XX ∗ FCtiyr + FMRyr,n,2br)

geo adjust (SU) with FMRg

1.2 ∗ (0. XX ∗ FCSUtiyr)

geo adjust (SU) with MRI_CEg or FMRg,j

(

(Shelter + 

Utilities)=FMRg,j
25 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Opportunities and Challenges Regarding Panel’s 

Recommendations

◼ Advantages

Consistency between thresholds and resources

– But when using FMR in thresholds we do not have consistency with FCti (different points in the distribution) 

Transparency

– Reduced number of components for threshold estimation

Simplicity in estimation, ease in explaining, understandable to public 

– One threshold (as opposed to three), simple to estimate and explain, understandable to public

– Resources based on REQ simple to estimate and explain, and likely understandable to public

◼ Disadvantages

Data availability

– Requires net implicit income from owner occupied housing in resources and CPS ASEC does not collect sufficient 

information to produce such a measure 

Transparency

– Increased number of components for resources

Simplicity in estimation, ease in explaining, understandable to public 

– Doubtful with respect to net implicit rental income based on FMRs 
26 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Contact

Thesia I. Garner

Chief Researcher, Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Washington, DC 20212

Garner.Thesia@BLS.gov

Office telephone: (202) 691 6576
27 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Appendix. Why FMRs Are Not a Good 

Measure of the Flow of Services from Owneroccupied Housing
28 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Relationship Between Rental Unit Characteristics and FMR Number of 

Bedrooms: Implication for Owners with Mortgages 

(a reason why FMRs in resources result in higher poverty rates)

FMR-Bedroom Assignment Based on Adults and Children

0 1 2 3 4+

Reported 

Number of 

Bedrooms

. 0.0% 35.6% 64.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 35.6% 64.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 53.1% 31.4% 9.2% 6.3% 0.0%

2 39.3% 33.1% 19.1% 6.5% 2.0%

3 18.4% 27.8% 29.7% 19.5% 4.5%

4+ 7.8% 23.3% 26.2% 28.4% 14.3%

Interpretation: 53.1% of CUs living in 1-bedroom housing units are being assigned FMRs for studio apartments. 

Thus, in resources, the implicit gross rent for the 1-bedroom owned housing unit when based on FMRs is an 

underestimation of the flow of services from a 1-bedroom housing unit.
29 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Relationship Between FMR Number of Bedrooms and Rental Unit 

Characteristics: Implication for Owners with Mortgages 

(a reason why FMRs in resources result in higher poverty rates)

FMR-Bedroom Assignment Based on Adults and Children

0 1 2 3 4+

Reported 

Number of 

Bedrooms

. 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 4.5% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%

2 28.7% 15.9% 9.2% 44.8% 28.0%

3 50.3% 49.8% 53.5% 44.8% 28.0%

4+ 13.5% 26.9% 30.7% 38.1% 39.6%

Interpretation: 50.3% of CUs assigned a FMR studio apartment report living in a 3-bedroom housing unit. Since single 

person CUs are the only type of CUs assigned a FMR studio apartment, we can also interpret this percentage 

as 50.3% of single person CUs report living in a 3-bedroom housing unit. This alternate interpretation 

only applies to the percentages reported in the first column. 
30 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Relationship Between Rental Unit Characteristics and FMR Number of 

Bedrooms: Implication for Owners without Mortgages 

(a reason why FMRs in resources result in higher poverty rates)

FMR-Bedroom Assignment Based on Adults and Children

0 1 2 3 4+

Reported 

Number of 

Bedrooms

. 52.2% 32.6% 4.3% 5.6% 5.4%

0 69.1% 0.0% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1 58.0% 32.5% 8.7% 0.4% 0.4%

2 49.4% 33.4% 11.7% 4.3% 1.3%

3 29.1% 37.6% 18.7% 9.4% 5.2%

4+ 19.5% 37.2% 21.4% 13.0% 9.0%

Interpretation: 58% of CUs living in 1-bedroom housing units are being assigned FMRs for studio apartments. 

Thus, in resources, the implicit gross rent for the 1-bedroom owned housing unit when based on FMRs is an 

underestimation of the flow of services from a 1-bedroom housing unit.
31 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Relationship Between FMR Number of Bedrooms and Rental Unit 

Characteristics: Implication for Owners without Mortgages

(a reason why FMRs in resources result in higher poverty rates)

FMR-Bedroom Assignment Based on Adults and Children

0 1 2 3 4+

Reported 

Number of 

Bedrooms

. 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.6%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1 5.4% 2.6% 1.5% 0.1% 0.2%

2 31.8% 18.7% 13.5% 9.8% 4.9%

3 45.3% 51.1% 52.6% 51.6% 49.1%

4+ 14.2% 22.0% 23.4% 30.6% 30.3%

Interpretation: 45.3% of CUs assigned a FMR studio apartment report living in a 3-bedroom housing unit. Since single 

person CUs are the only type of CUs assigned a FMR studio apartment, we can also interpret this percentage 

as 45.3% of single person CUs report living in a 3-bedroom housing unit. This alternate interpretation 

only applies to the percentages reported in the first column. 
32 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Relationship Between Rental Unit Characteristics and FMR Number of 

Bedrooms: Implication for Capping Rental Subsidies in Resources

FMR-Bedroom Assignment Based on Adults and Children

0 1 2 3 4+

Reported 

Number of 

Bedrooms 

in Rental 

Unit

. 34.9% 41.6% 9.0% 8.7% 5.8%

0 89.1% 7.6% 1.0% 2.3% 0.0%

1 72.7% 17.2% 6.9% 2.3% 0.8%

2 35.8% 17.8% 29.9% 13.4% 3.1%

3 22.7% 12.0% 25.1% 29.2% 11.0%

4+ 28.3% 7.6% 15.7% 19.3% 29.2%

Interpretation: 72.9% of renter CUs living in 1-bedroom housing units are being assigned FMRs for studio 

apartments. Thus, the rent subsidies that enter resources are capped at the studio apartment rent as opposed 

to the 1-bedroom rent.