MARCH 2020
A Shortage of
Affordable Homes
The National Low Income Housing Coalition
1000 Vermont Avenue, NW • Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-1530 • https://nlihc.org
© 2020 National Low Income Housing Coalition
ANDREW AURAND, PH.D., MSW
Vice President for Research
DAN EMMANUEL, MSW
Senior Research Analyst
DANIEL THREET, Ph.D.
Research Analyst
IKRA RAFI
Creative Services Specialist
DIANE YENTEL
President and CEO
ABOUT NLIHC
The National Low Income Housing Coalition is
dedicated solely to achieving socially just public policy
that ensures people with the lowest incomes in the
United States have affordable and decent homes.
Founded in 1974 by Cushing N. Dolbeare, NLIHC
educates, organizes and advocates to ensure decent,
affordable housing for everyone.
Our goals are to preserve existing federally assisted
homes and housing resources, expand the supply of low
income housing, and establish housing stability as the
primary purpose of federal low-income housing policy.
A Shortage of
Affordable Homes
NLIHC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marla Newman, Chair, Winston-Salem, NC
Dora Gallo, First Vice-Chair, Los Angeles, CA
Lot Diaz, Second Vice-Chair, Washington, DC
Moises Loza, Treasurer, Alexandria, VA
Martha Weatherspoon, Secretary, Clarksville, TN
Bob Palmer, At-Large Executive Committee, Chicago, IL
Dara Balwin, Washington, DC
Russell “Rusty” Bennett, Birmingham, AL
Emma “Pinky” Clifford, Pine Ridge, SD
Yanira Cortes, Resident, Toms River, NJ
Chris Estes, Washington, DC
Daisy Franklin, Resident, Norwalk, CT
Deirdre “DeeDee” Gilmore, Charlottesville, VA
Aaron Gornstein, Boston, MA
Erhard Mahnke, Burlington, VT
Rachael Myers, Seattle, WA
Karlo Ng, San Francisco, CA
Ann O’Hara, Boston, MA
Crishelle Palay, Houston, TX
Eric Price, Washington, DC
Shalonda Rivers, Opa Locka, FL
Nan Roman, Washington, DC
Michael Steele, New York, NY
NLIHC STAFF
Sonya Acosta Policy Analyst
Jordan April Research Intern
Kyle Arbuckle Housing Advocacy Organizer
Andrew Aurand Vice President for Research
Victoria Bourret Housing Advocacy Organizer
Alayna Calabro Field Intern
Josephine Clarke Executive Assistant
Dan Emmanuel Senior Research Analyst
Ed Gramlich Senior Advisor
Paul Kealey Chief Operating Ofcer
Mike Koprowski Director, Multisector Housing
Campaign
Joseph Lindstrom Director for Field Organizing
Kim Johnson Policy Analyst
Mia Juliana Graphic Design/Communications
Intern
May Louis-Juste Communications Specialist
Lisa Marlow Manager of Media Relations and
Communications
Sarah Saadian Vice President for Public Policy
Khara Norris Director of Administration
Noah Patton Housing Policy Analyst
Ikra Ra Creative Services Specialist
Tyra Reed Policy Intern
Catherine Reeves Development Coordinator
Brooke Schipporeit Housing Advocacy Organizer
Daniel Threet Research Analyst
Chantelle Wilkinson Multisector Housing Campaign
Coordinator
Renee Willis Vice President for Field and
Communications
Diane Yentel President and CEO
MARCH 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................1
Shortage of Affordable Rental Homes .......................2
Affordable, but Not Available ..............................4
Housing Cost Burdens .....................................6
The Housing Shortage for Extremely
Low-Income Renters by State...............................8
The Housing Shortage for Extremely
Low-Income Renters in the 50 Largest Metros ................9
Who Are Extremely
Low-Income Renters?.....................................11
Racial Disparities and Extremely Low-Income Renters ........13
A Systemic National Shortage of Rental
Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households .............15
Federal Policy Solutions for the Lowest-Income People .......17
Housing Justice..........................................19
Conclusion ..............................................20
About the Data ..........................................21
For More Information.....................................21
References ..............................................22
Appendix A: State Comparisons ...........................25
Appendix B: Metropolitan Comparisons ....................26
Made Possible By The Generous Support Of
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
1
T
he last few years have seen the lowest
unemployment rate in 50 years, new stock
market records, and increasing weekly
earnings for full-time workers (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2019; Phillips, 2020; Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2020). e benets of economic growth,
however, are unevenly distributed: income inequality
continues to grow, 44% of workers aged 18-64 are
in low-wage jobs, more than 38 million Americans
remain in poverty, and homelessness has increased
by 3% since 2018 (Guzman, 2019; Ross &
Bateman, 2019; Semega et al., 2019; HUD, 2020).
Improvements in the economy have not resolved
the longstanding needs of low-income people who
continue to struggle to nd aordable, decent,
and accessible housing. e supply of aordable
housing for the nation’s lowest-income families and
individuals remains deeply inadequate.
Each year, NLIHC examines the American
Community Survey (ACS) to determine the
availability of rental homes aordable to extremely
low-income households – those with incomes at or
below the poverty line or 30% of the area median
income (AMI), whichever is greater – and other
income groups (Denitions). is annual report
provides information on aordable housing for the
U.S., each state plus the District of Columbia (DC),
and the largest metropolitan areas. is year’s key
ndings include:
• 10.9 million renter households with extremely
1 We use ‘renters’ and ‘renter households’ interchangeably to refer to renter households throughout this report.
low incomes account for 25% of all renter
households and 8% of all U.S. households.
• Extremely low-income renters in the U.S. face
a shortage of 7 million aordable and available
rental homes. Only 36 aordable and available
homes exist for every 100 extremely low-income
renter households.
1
• Seventy-one percent (7.7 million) of the nation’s
10.9 million extremely low-income renter
households are severely housing cost-burdened,
spending more than half of their incomes on
rent and utilities. ey account for almost 72%
of all severely cost-burdened renters in the U.S.
• Extremely low-income renters are much more
likely to be severely housing cost-burdened than
other income groups. irty-three percent of
very low-income, eight percent of low-income,
and two percent of middle-income renters are
severely cost-burdened.
• Extremely low-income renters are more likely
than other renters to be seniors or people with
disabilities. Forty-six percent of extremely low-
income renter households are seniors or disabled,
and another 44% are in the labor force, in school,
or single-adult caregivers.
• People of color are more likely than white
people to be extremely low-income renters.
Twenty percent of Black households, 17% of
American Indian or Alaska Native households,
15% of Hispanic households, and 10% of Asian
households are extremely low-income renters.
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI): The median family income in the metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME (ELI): Households with incomes at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of AMI, whichever is higher
VERY LOW-INCOME (VLI): Households with incomes between ELI and 50% of AMI
LOW-INCOME (LI): Households with incomes between 51% and 80% of AMI
MIDDLE-INCOME (MI): Households with incomes between 81% and 100% of AMI
ABOVE MEDIAN INCOME: Households with incomes above 100% of AMI
COST BURDENED: Spending more than 30% of household income on housing costs
SEVERELY COST BURDENED: Spending more than 50% of household income on housing costs
2
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
Only 6% of white non-Hispanic households are
extremely low-income renters.
• Black households account for 12% of all
households in the United States and 19% of
all renters, but they account for 26% of all
renter households with extremely low incomes.
Likewise, Hispanic households account for 12%
of all households, 19% of all renter households,
and 21% of all renter households with extremely
low incomes.
• No state has an adequate supply of aordable
and available homes for extremely low-income
renters. e current relative supply ranges from
18 aordable and available homes for every 100
extremely low-income renter households in
Nevada to 62 in West Virginia.
• e shortage of aordable homes ranges from
8,200 in Wyoming to nearly one million in
California.
Housing is a fundamental need, yet millions of
extremely low-income renters cannot aord a place
to live. e private market consistently fails to meet
the housing needs of the lowest-income families.
What extremely low-income renters can aord to
pay will not cover the development and operating
costs of new housing developments, and in many
cases, it will not even meet the rents demanded
from landlords to maintain older housing. A family
of four with poverty-level income could aord a
monthly rent of no more than $644 in 2019 without
housing assistance. e average cost of a modest
two-bedroom rental home at the fair market rent,
however, was $1,194 (NLIHC, 2019a).
While the private market has never been able to
produce an adequate supply of homes for extremely
low-income households, the growth of low-wage
work exacerbates the problem. Seven of the ten
occupations projected to experience the greatest
growth over the next decade provide median
hourly wages that are insucient for full-time
workers to aord modest apartments (NLIHC,
2 e 30% standard is commonly used to estimate the scope of housing aordability problems and serves as the basis for some administrative policies, but some
households may struggle even at this level of housing cost (Stone, 2006).
2019a). Meanwhile, Congress consistently provides
insucient funding for federal housing assistance:
three out of four low-income households in need
of and eligible for federal housing assistance receive
none (Fischer & Sard, 2017).
e lowest-income families are often forced to
make impossible choices between shelter and food,
healthcare, education, and other basic needs. is
deprivation is severe, predictable, and avoidable;
not addressing it is a failure of will and an injustice.
Access to a stable, decent, aordable, and accessible
home is essential to virtually every area of a person’s
life. Housing is intrinsically connected to better
health outcomes (Bailey, 2020), economic mobility
(Chetty, Hendren, & Katz, 2015), employment
prospects (Desmond & Gershenson, 2016), and
greater opportunities for people exiting the criminal
justice system (Couloute, 2018).
A large-scale, sustained commitment to aordable
housing for people with the lowest incomes, through
such programs as the national Housing Trust Fund
(HTF), Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), and
public housing, can correct for the failures of the
market and achieve housing justice.
A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOMES
Over 10.9 million of the nation’s 43.7 million renter
households have extremely low incomes. Only 7.3
million rental homes are aordable to extremely
low-income renters, assuming households should
spend no more than 30% of their incomes on
housing.
2
is supply leaves an absolute shortage of
3.6 million aordable rental homes. Extremely low-
income renters are the only income group facing this
absolute shortage of aordable homes.
e shortage does not account for the 568,000
people who are experiencing homelessness, as the
ACS includes only households with an address
(HUD, 2020). Taking into account the number
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
3
FIGURE 1: RENTAL UNITS AND RENTERS IN THE US, MATCHED BY
AFFORDABILITY AND INCOME CATEGORIES, 2018 (IN MILLIONS)
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
Households
(By Income Category)
10.9m Households
6.8m Households
9.0m Households
4.5m Households
12.5m Households
AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE
AFFORDABLE
Cumulative Units
(By Affordability Category)
46m Units
41.2 + 4.8 =
41.2m Units
35.4 + 5.8 =
35.4m Units
16.2 + 19.2 =
16.2m Units
7.3 + 8.9 =
7.3m Units
Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Middle-Income Above Median Income
of people experiencing homelessness in families,
another 449,737 homes are needed. e real
shortage of rental homes aordable to extremely
low-income households, therefore, is closer to 4.1
million. Even this estimate is conservative, as it does
not account for doubled-up households.
In contrast, there is a cumulative surplus of
aordable homes for households with higher
incomes (Figure 1). Approximately 6.8 million
renter households have very low incomes (i.e.,
incomes above the extremely low-income threshold
but below 50% of AMI). Members of that income
group can aord the same 7.3 million rental homes
that are aordable to extremely low-income renters,
and they can also aord another 8.9 million more
expensive rental homes. In total, 16.2 million rental
homes are aordable for the 6.8 million very low-
income renter households. A cumulative shortage
remains, however, when we consider both extremely
low- and very low-income renter households
together.
Nine million renters have low incomes (i.e.,
incomes between 51% and 80% of AMI). Low-
income renters can aord the 16.2 million homes
aordable to extremely low-income and very low-
income renters, and they can aord an additional
19.2 million more expensive rental homes. In total,
35.4 million rental homes are aordable to low-
income renters. Approximately 4.5 million renters
are middle-income (i.e., with incomes between 81%
and 100% of AMI). Middle-income renters can
aord all the homes that low-income renters can
aord, plus an additional 5.8 million more expensive
rental homes, so the total supply of aordable rental
housing for that group is 41.2 million units.
4
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
AFFORDABLE, BUT NOT
AVAILABLE
In the private market, households are free to occupy
homes that cost less than 30% of their incomes,
and many do. When higher-income households
occupy rental homes that are also aordable to
lower-income households, they render those homes
unavailable to the lower-income households.
Extremely low-income renters must compete
with all higher-income households for the limited
number of units aordable to them in the private
market. An analysis of housing aordability,
therefore, cannot stop at the shortage of homes
aordable to renters with extremely low incomes; it
must also account for the fact that higher-income
renters are occupying some of the most aordable
units. Rental homes are both aordable and
available for households of a specic income group
if the homes are aordable to them and are currently
vacant or are occupied by households with incomes
at their income level.
Of the 7.3 million homes aordable to extremely
low-income households, approximately one million
are occupied by very low-income households, one
million are occupied by low-income households,
400,000 are occupied by middle-income households,
and 900,000 are occupied by households with above-
median incomes. Consequently,
only four million homes that rent
at aordable prices for extremely
low-income renters are available
to them. at leaves a shortage
of seven million aordable and
available homes for renters with
extremely low incomes. Many
extremely low-income households
are consequently forced to rent
homes they cannot aord – 23%
are in homes aordable to very
low-income households, 33%
are in homes aordable to low-
income households, 7% are in
homes aordable to middle-
income households, and 4% are in homes aordable
to households with above-median incomes.
e relative supply of aordable and available rental
homes improves as incomes increase. Only 36 rental
homes are aordable and available for every 100
extremely low-income renter households (Figure 2).
Fifty-seven exist for every 100 renter households
with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. Ninety-three
and 101 aordable and available rental homes exist
for every 100 renter households earning at or below
80% and 100% of AMI, respectively.
e shortage of aordable and available rental
homes for renters with incomes over 50% of AMI
can be explained by the shortage of aordable and
available rental homes for those with incomes below
FIGURE 2: AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTAL
HOMES PER 100 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, 2018
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data. AMI = Area Median Income
101
93
57
36
At 100% AMI
At 80% AMI
At 50% AMI
At Extremely
Low-Income
Extremely low-income
renters must compete
with all higher-income
households for the
limited number of units
affordable to them in
the private market.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
5
FIGURE 3: RENTER HOUSEHOLDS AND AFFORDABLE
& AVAILABLE RENTAL HOMES, 2018
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
Incremental Increase in Households
Incremental Increase in Affordable & Available Rental Homes
Household Income
10.9
4.0
6.8
6.2
9.0
14.8
< 80% AMI
10.9
4.0
6.8
6.2
< 50% AMI
10.9
4.0
6.8
6.2
9.0
14.8
4.5
6.7
< 100% AMI
10.9
4.0
6.8
6.2
9.0
14.8
4.5
6.7
12.5
14.4
Above Median
Income
10.9
4.0
At Extremely
Low-Income
50% of AMI. Figure 3 illustrates the incremental
change in the cumulative number of renters at
increasingly higher levels of income, alongside the
cumulative number of rental homes aordable and
available. e gure shows
a cumulative shortage of
aordable and available
rental homes at lower
levels of income and a
surplus at higher levels.
Represented on the far
left of Figure 3, 10.9
million extremely low-
income renter households
occupy or have access to
only 4 million aordable
and available units, leaving a shortage of nearly
7 million rental homes. Moving to the right to
include all renter households earning up to 50%
of AMI, there is an incremental increase of 6.8
million households, but the number of aordable
and available rental homes increases only by 6.2
million units. Consequently, there is a shortage of
7.5 million aordable and available rental homes for
households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI.
e shortage decreases
as incomes rise. Going
further up the income
scale to include all
renters earning less
than 80% of AMI adds
9 million households
to the cumulative total
of renter households,
and it adds 14.8 million
units to the cumulative
total of aordable and available rental homes.
is incremental increase signicantly reduces the
cumulative shortage of aordable and available
rental homes. At median income, the cumulative
shortage disappears.
The figure shows a
cumulative shortage
of affordable and
available rental homes
at lower levels of
income.
6
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
e bars in Figure 4 illustrate the incremental
change in the cumulative decit and eventual
surplus of aordable and available rental homes
with each step up in income. Renters with extremely
low incomes face the most severe shortage by far,
and the cumulative shortages of homes available
and aordable for households with higher incomes
are largely attributable to the shortage for the
lowest-income renters. e dashed line shows the
cumulative decit or surplus of aordable and
available homes for all renters below
each income threshold. e cumulative
decit grows to 7.5 million aordable
and available homes for all renters with
incomes below 50% of AMI, but the
cumulative decit is only 1.7 million
for all renters with incomes below 80%
AMI because of the improvement
in supply for renters with incomes
between 51% and 80% of AMI.
HOUSING COST
BURDENS
Households are considered housing
cost-burdened when they spend more
than 30% of their incomes on rent and
utilities. ey are considered severely
cost-burdened when they spend more
than half of their incomes on their
housing. Cost-burdened households
have less to spend on other necessities,
such as food, clothing, transportation,
and healthcare. More than 9.3 million
extremely low-income renters, 5.2
million very low-income renters, and
4.1 million low-income renters are
cost-burdened (Figure 5). Combined,
extremely low-, very low-, and low-
income renters with incomes below
80% of AMI account for 92% of all
cost-burdened renters.
Of the 10.8 million severely housing
cost-burdened renter households, 7.7
million are extremely low-income,
FIGURE 4: INCREMENTAL CHANGE TO SURPLUS
(DEFICIT) OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
RENTAL HOMES, 2018 (IN MILLIONS)
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
-7.0
-0.6
5.8
2.2
1.9
Extremely
Low-Income (ELI)
>ELI to 50%
of AMI
51% to 80%
of AMI
81% to 100%
of AMI
Above Median
-7.5
-1.8
0.4
Cumulative Deficit/Surplus
of Affordable and Available
Rental Homes
----
FIGURE 5: RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH COST
BURDEN BY INCOME GROUP, 2018
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS
9,376,471
7,745,633
Extremely
Low-Income
5,209,550
2,228,984
Very
Low-Income
4,140,459
705,088
Low-Income
928,264
89,717
Middle-Income
708,106
49,862
Above
Median Income
Cost Burden
Severe Cost Burden
Extremely low-income
renters account for
nearly 72% of all
severely cost-burdened
renters in the U.S.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
7
2.2 million are very low-income, 705,000 are low-
income, and 140,000 are middle- or higher-income.
Extremely low-income renters account for nearly
72% of all severely cost-burdened renters in the U.S
(Figure 6). Combined, extremely low-, very low-,
and low-income households account for nearly
99% of all severely cost-burdened renters. e other
1% of severely-cost burdened renters are largely
concentrated in high-cost or large metropolitan
areas. Just 10 metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, New
York, Miami, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Chicago,
Phoenix, Tampa, and Atlanta) account for nearly
49% of all severely cost-burdened middle-income
and higher-income renters.
3
Los Angeles, New
York, and Miami themselves account more than
one-third of severely cost-burdened middle-income
and higher-income renters in the U.S.
3 ese same metropolitan areas account for 31% of all middle-income and higher-income renters.
4 e weighted average of 30% of HUD Median Family Income for HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) areas (NLIHC, 2019a).
5 e weighted average of two-bedroom FMRs by FMR area (NLIHC, 2019a).
Extremely low-income renters have little, if any,
money remaining for other necessities after paying
their rent. A severely cost-burdened extremely
low-income family of four with monthly income
of $1,928,
4
for example, has $734 remaining for
all other non-housing expenses after renting the
average two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent
of $1,194.
5
e U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
thrifty food budget for a family of four (two adults
and two school-aged children) is $647 per month
(2019b), leaving only $87 for transportation, child
care, and all other necessities.
Severely housing cost-burdened, poor renters make
signicant sacrices to pay for housing. In 2017,
poor families with children who were severely
cost-burdened spent just $310 per month on
food, roughly half the cost of the most minimal
food plan recommended by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
for families. Severely cost-
burdened families also spend less
on healthcare, transportation,
and clothing ( Joint Center for
Housing Studies, 2019).
Even with these sacrices, severe
housing cost burdens make it
dicult for poor renters to keep
up with their rents. e 2017
American Housing Survey
reports that 1.9% of all renter
households were threatened with
eviction within the previous
three months. Among renters
with incomes under $30,000,
that share climbs to 2.7% ( Joint
Center for Housing Studies,
2020).
FIGURE 6: SEVERELY HOUSING COST-BURDENED
RENTERS BY INCOME, 2018
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS
Extremely
Low-Income
71.6%
Very Low-Income
20.6%
Low-Income
6.5%
Middle-Income
0.8%
Above
Median Income
0.5%
8
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
THE HOUSING SHORTAGE FOR
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS BY STATE
No state has an adequate supply of rental housing
aordable and available for extremely low-
income households (Figure 7 and Appendix A).
e shortage ranges from 8,201 rental homes in
Wyoming to nearly one million in California. e
states where extremely low-income renters face the
greatest challenges in nding aordable homes are
Nevada, with only 18 aordable and available rental
homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter
households, California (23 for every 100 extremely
low-income renter households), Arizona (26/100),
Florida (26/100), and Oregon (28/100). e states
with the greatest relative supply of aordable and
available rental homes for extremely low-income
renters still have signicant shortages. e ve top
states are West Virginia, with 62 aordable and
available rental homes for every 100 extremely
low-income renter households, Alabama (56/100),
Mississippi (55/100), Kentucky (53/100), and
Arkansas (52/100).
A majority of extremely low-income renters are
severely housing cost-burdened in every state. e
states with the greatest percentage of extremely
low-income renter households with severe cost
burdens are Nevada (81%), Florida (79%), California
FIGURE 7: RENTAL HOMES AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
PER 100 EXTREMELY LOW INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY STATE
Note: Extremely low income (ELI) renter households have incomes at or below the poverty level or 30% of the area median
income. Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS Data.
ME
51
NH
39
MA–48
CT–41
NY
36
PA
38
NJ–29
DE–36
MD–34
VA
36
WV
62
OH
44
IN
38
MI
40
IL
36
WI
33
MN
41
IA
46
MO
42
AR
52
LA
42
TX
29
OK
45
KS
41
NE
37
ND
51
SD
49
MT
39
ID
44
WA
31
OR
28
CA
23
AK
29
HI
39
WY
50
CO
31
UT
31
NV
18
AZ
26
NM
46
NC
43
TN
47
KY
53
SC
47
GA
41
AL
56
MS
55
FL
26
RI–51
VT
42
DC–41
30 or Fewer
Between 31 and 40
Between 41 and 45
More than 45
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
9
(77%), Delaware (76%), New Jersey (74%), and
Oregon (74%). Rhode Island has the smallest, but
still signicant, percentage of extremely low-income
renters with severe cost burdens (55%).
e state shortages of aordable and available
rental homes disappear for households higher up
the income ladder. Forty-nine states and DC have
a cumulative shortage of aordable and available
rental homes for renters with household incomes
below 50% of AMI. Eighteen states and DC have a
cumulative shortage for all renters with household
incomes below 80% of AMI. In eight states with
high-cost metropolitan regions—California, Florida,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, and Washington—there is a cumulative
shortage for all renters with household incomes up
to the median income.
THE HOUSING SHORTAGE FOR
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS IN THE 50 LARGEST
METROS
Every major metropolitan area in the U.S. has a
shortage of aordable and available rental homes
for extremely low-income renters (Table 1 and
Appendix B). Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas,
extremely low-income renters face the most severe
shortages in Las Vegas, NV, and Austin, TX, with 14
aordable and available rental homes for every 100
extremely low-income renter households, Riverside,
CA (18/100), Phoenix, AZ (18/100), and San
Diego, CA (19/100).
Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas, those with the
least severe shortages of rental homes aordable
TABLE 1: LARGE METROPOLIAN AREAS WITH THE LEAST AND MOST SEVERE
SHORTAGES OF RENTAL HOMES AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
LEAST SEVERE MOST SEVERE
Metropolitan Area
Affordable and
Available Rental
Homes per 100 Renter
Households
Metropolitan Area
Affordable and
Available Rental
Homes per 100 Renter
Households
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 54 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 14
Pittsburgh, PA 51 Austin-Round Rock, TX 14
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 47 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 18
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 42 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 18
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 41
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA
19
Cleveland-Elyria, OH 41 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 19
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 40 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 20
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN
40 Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA 20
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 39 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 20
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 38 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 21
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
No state has an
adequate supply
of rental housing
affordable and available
for extremely low-
income households.
10
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
and available to extremely low-income renters are
Providence, RI, with 54 for every 100 extremely
low-income renter households, Pittsburgh, PA
(51/100), Boston, MA (47/100), Bualo, NY
(42/100), and Hartford, CT (41/100).
Each of the 50 largest metropolitan areas has a
shortage of rental homes aordable and available
for renters with household incomes below 50% of
AMI. e shortages begin to disappear at higher
incomes. irty of the 50 largest metropolitan
areas have a cumulative shortage of aordable and
available rental homes for all renters with household
incomes up to 80% of AMI. Only 11 of them have
a cumulative shortage for all renters with household
incomes up to the median income. Unsurprisingly,
more than 90% of renters with extremely low
incomes are cost-burdened in eight of the ten
metropolitan areas with the most severe shortages
of aordable and available homes. In seven of those
metropolitan areas, at least 80% of renters with
extremely low incomes were severely cost-burdened.
A signicant factor in explaining these severe
housing cost burdens is the lack of subsidized
aordable housing for extremely low-income
households. Figure 8 shows that metropolitan
areas with less HUD-assisted housing as a share
of the total rental stock have a greater share of
extremely low-income renters who are severely
cost-burdened. HUD assistance includes public
housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and project-
based rental assistance. is relationship exists even
after considering rental vacancy rates, the share of
rental housing in multifamily buildings, and the age
of the housing stock. In Boston, 59% of extremely
FIGURE 8: HUD-ASSISTED SHARE OF RENTAL STOCK AND SHARE OF
SEVERELY COST-BURDENED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN TOP 50 METROS
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS and HUD Picture of Subsidized Households data.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
50% 60% 70% 80%90% 100%
R²= 0.566
Boston
Las Vegas
Houston
Providence
HUD-Assisted Share of Rental Stock
Severely Cost-Burdened Share of ELI Renter Households
A significant factor in
explaining these severe
housing cost burdens is
the lack of subsidized
affordable housing for
extremely low-income
households.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
11
low-income renter households are severely cost-
burdened, while HUD-assisted rental housing
represents a relatively high share of the rental stock
at 18%. Massachusetts also operates its own state-
funded public housing programs, which provide over
28,000 additional subsidized units in the Boston
metropolitan area (Massachusetts Department of
Housing and Community Development, 2020).
In Providence, RI, 57% of extremely low-income
renter households are severely cost-burdened,
while HUD-assisted housing represents 20% of
the rental housing stock. In comparison, 86% of
extremely low-income renters are severely cost-
6 A disabled household is one whose householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of them has a disability. A senior
household is one whose householder or householder’s spouse (if applicable) is at least 62 years of age.
burdened in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, where
HUD-assisted housing represents 4% of the rental
housing stock. Seventy-nine percent of extremely
low-income renters are severely cost-burdened in
Houston, where HUD-assisted housing represents
5% of the rental stock.
WHO ARE EXTREMELY LOW-
INCOME RENTERS?
Renters with special needs and senior renters are
more likely than other renters to have extremely
low incomes. Twenty-ve percent of all renter
households have extremely low incomes, but 43% of
renter households who are disabled and 34% who
are senior renter households have extremely low
incomes.
6
As a group, extremely low-income renters
are more likely than the general renter population to
be at least 62 years old or to have a disability
(Figure 9).
e vast majority of extremely low-income renters
work in low-wage jobs or are unable to work. irty-
seven percent of extremely low-income renter
households are in the labor force, while 28% are
47% 27% 3% 6% 18%
26% 28% 5% 13% 28%
Non-disabled, non-elderly without children Non-disabled, non-elderly with children Disabled with children Disabled Senior
All Other Renter Households
Extremely Low-Income Renter Households
FIGURE 9: HOUSEHOLD TYPE BY INCOME
Note: Senior means householder or householder’s spouse is at least 62 years of age, regardless of children in the house-
hold. Disabled means householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of them
has a disability. Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
Renters with special
needs and senior
renters are more likely
than other renters to
have extremely low
incomes.
12
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
seniors, 18% have a householder with a disability,
and another 7% are students or single-adult
caregivers to a young child or household member
with a disability (Figure 10).
Seventy-seven percent of extremely low-income
households in the labor force work more than 20
hours per week, but low-wage employment does not
provide them adequate income to aord housing.
e national average of what a full-time worker,
working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks of the year,
needs to earn to aord a modest one-bedroom or
two-bedroom apartment is $18.65 or $22.96 per
hour, respectively (NLIHC, 2019a). A recent report
from Brookings nds that 53 million people are
“low-wage workers,” with a median hourly wage
of $10.22. Nearly half of this group works in retail
sales, food preparation, building cleaning, personal
care, construction, or driving (Ross & Bateman,
2019). Low-wage employment will continue to
grow. Seven of the ten occupations projected to
add the most jobs over the next decade, including
medical assistants, home health aides, janitors, and
food servers, provide a median wage that is lower
than what is needed for a full-time worker to aord
modest rental housing (NLIHC, 2019a).
More than 14% of extremely low-income renters
are single-adult caregivers of a young child or of a
household member with a disability. More than half
FIGURE 10: EXTREMELY LOW INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
Note: Mutually exclusive categories applied in the following order: senior, disabled, in labor force, enrolled in school, single
adult caregiver of a child under 7 or of a household member with a disability, and other. Senior means householder or house-
holder’s spouse (if applicable) is at least 62 years of age. Disabled means householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable)
are younger than 62 and at least one of them has a disability. Working hours is usual number of hours worked by householder
and householder's spouse (if applicable). School means householder and householder's spouse (if applicable) are enrolled in
school. Fifteen percent of extremely low-income renter households include a single adult caregiver, more than half of whom
usually work more than 20 hours per week. Eleven percent of extremely low-income renter households are enrolled in school,
48% of whom usually work more than 20 hours per week. Source: 2018 ACS PUMS.
Single non-disabled non-elderly caregiver
of person w/ disability or young child
3%
School
4%
40+ hours / week
20 to 39 hours / week
< 20 hours / week
Unemployed
Other
10%
Disabled
18%
Senior
28%
In Labor Force
37%
34%
43%
9%
14%
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
13
(53%) of these caregivers also participate in the labor
market. More than one quarter of these caregivers
work full-time, and another one quarter usually
work between 20 and 39 hours per week. Without
housing assistance or increases in their hourly wages,
they cannot rely on their work hours to aord their
homes.
RACIAL DISPARITIES AND
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS
Black, Native American, and Hispanic households
are more likely than white households to be
extremely low-income renters. Twenty percent
of Black households, 17% of American Indian
or Alaska Native households, 15% of Hispanic
households, and 10% of Asian households are
extremely low-income renters. In contrast, only 6%
of white non-Hispanic households are extremely
low-income renters. is racial disparity is the
result of historical inequities and racist policies
and practices that have engendered higher
homeownership rates, greater wealth, and higher
incomes among white households. As Figure
11 illustrates, non-Hispanic white households
account for 65% of all U.S. households (including
homeowners and renters), 50% of all renters, and
43% of all extremely low-income renters. Black
households account for 12% of all households, yet
they account for 19% of all renters and 26% of all
extremely low-income renters. Hispanic households
account for 12% of all U.S. households, 19% of all
renters, and 21% of extremely low-income renters.
Decades of racial discrimination by real estate
agents, banks and insurers, and the federal
government made homeownership dicult to obtain
Black households
account for 12% of all
households, yet they
account for 26% of all
extremely low-income
renters.
FIGURE 11: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION BY HOUSING TYPE
Source: 2018 ACS PUMS.
All Households Renter Households
Extremely Low-Income
Renter Households
White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian Other Interracial Couple
65%
12%
12%
4%
2%
5%
50%
19%
19%
5%
3%
4%
43%
21%
26%
5%
3%
1%
14
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
for people of color, and those disadvantages have
compounded over time. Many factors kept people
of color from being able to purchase homes through
the middle of the twentieth century: pervasive
refusal of whites to live in racially integrated
neighborhoods, physical violence to people of
color who tried to integrate (often tolerated by
the police), restrictive covenants forbidding sales
to minorities (some of which were mandated by
the Federal Housing Administration), and federal
housing policy that denied borrowers access to
credit in minority neighborhoods (Rothstein, 2017;
Coates, 2014). e prohibition of racially restrictive
covenants and racial discrimination in the sale,
rental, and nancing of housing has not rectied
the inequalities they created. People of color have
not beneted over time from the appreciation
in the value of the homes they were barred from
purchasing, which has expanded the wealth
gap and magnied inequalities of opportunity.
Housing discrimination plays a role in explaining
the profound racial disparities in wealth that exist
today—the wealth of the median white family is 12
times larger than the wealth of the median Black
family ( Jones, 2017). In a vicious cycle, the wealth
gap makes it harder for minority households to
invest in homeownership or help their children
purchase homes.
While overt discrimination was outlawed by
the Fair Housing Act, subtler forms of housing
discrimination continue to constrain the options of
people of color. Undercover testing on Long Island
from 2016 to 2019 found evidence that real estate
agents still steer minority homebuyers away from
white neighborhoods, avoid business in minority
neighborhoods, impose more stringent conditions
on minority buyers, and engage in other forms of
disparate treatment (Choi, Dedman, Herbert, &
Winslow, 2019). HUD’s fair housing test in 28
metropolitan areas across the country found that
Black homebuyers were shown 17.7% fewer homes
than white homebuyers with the same qualications
and preferences (HUD, 2013). Today’s credit scoring
system and lending practices also continue to serve
as barriers to minority homeownership (Rice &
Swesnik, 2012; Bartlett, Morse, Stanton, & Wallace,
2018).
Racial disparities in income are the result of
discrimination in hiring and setting wages,
dierences in employment rates, and other factors.
A recent review of discrimination studies found
that hiring discrimination continues to adversely
aect people of color. Whites receive on average
36% more callbacks than Blacks and 24% more
than Latinos (Quillian, Pager, Hexel, & Midtbøen,
2017). e same review found no decline in hiring
discrimination against Blacks over the past 25 years.
Recent wage growth has been racially unequal even
for people of the same education. Between 2015 and
2019, white workers with bachelor’s degrees have
seen their wages increase by 6.6%, but Black workers
with the same degrees have seen their wages decline
by 0.3% (Gould & Wilson, 2019). Black workers are
more likely than white workers to be underemployed
or unemployed at all education levels (Williams &
Wilson, 2019). In 2018, the median income of Black
and Hispanic households was 61% and 76% of the
median white household, respectively (Guzman,
2019).
Looking just at renters, one can see strong patterns
of racial inequality. People of color are more
likely to be extremely low-income renters: 35% of
American Indian renters, 34% of Black renters, 28%
of Hispanic renters, and 24% of Asian renters have
extremely low incomes, compared to 21% of white
non-Hispanic renters (Figure 12).
Across racial lines, the majority of extremely low-
income renters are severely housing cost-burdened:
70.5% of Hispanic, 70.9% of non-Hispanic Black,
Racial disparities in
income are the result of
discrimination in hiring
and setting wages,
differences in employment
rates, and other factors.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
15
and 70.5% of non-Hispanic white extremely low-
income renters pay more than half their incomes
for housing. Sixty percent of American Indian
extremely low-income renters are severely housing
cost-burdened, but poor housing conditions, low-
quality housing, and overcrowding are signicant
issues in tribal areas (Pindus et al., 2017).
A SYSTEMIC NATIONAL
SHORTAGE OF RENTAL
HOUSING FOR EXTREMELY LOW-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
e severe shortage of aordable homes for
extremely low-income renters is systemic, aecting
every state and metropolitan area. Absent public
subsidy, the private market is unable to produce
new rental housing aordable to these households,
because the rents that the lowest-income households
can aord to pay typically do not cover the
development costs and operating expenses of new
housing. New rental housing, therefore, is largely
targeted to the higher-price end of the market. e
average asking monthly rent in a new apartment
building in 2018 was $1,670, far higher than what
an extremely low-income renter household could
aord (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2019).
e lack of new aordable rental construction
in the private market and insucient housing
assistance force extremely low-income renters to
rely on private-market housing that “lters down”
in relative price as it becomes older. e ltering
theory suggests that new market-rate development
for higher-income households results in a chain
of household moves that helps lower-income
households: Higher-income households move
into new, more expensive homes when they are
constructed, leaving behind their older housing.
Middle-income households move into the vacated
properties, leaving behind their own, even older
housing. is ltering process is assumed to
eventually increase the availability of older and
lower-priced housing for low-income renters.
e ltering process, however, fails to produce a
sucient supply of rental homes
inexpensive enough for the
lowest-income renters to aord.
In strong markets, owners have
an incentive to redevelop their
properties to receive higher rents
from higher-income households.
In weak markets, owners have an
incentive to abandon their rental
properties or convert them to
other uses when rental income is
too low to cover basic operating
costs and maintenance.
e rental market is signicantly
losing low-cost rental homes
while gaining high-cost ones.
Between 1990 and 2017, the
FIGURE 12: INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF RENTERS
BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data.
Some columns do not sum to 100 due to rounding.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
35%
21%
9%
21%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
34%
21%
9%
18%
Black,
non-Hispanic
28%
23%
10%
21%
Hispanic
21%
20%
11%
33%
Asian
16%
20%
12%
41%
White,
non-Hispanic
14% 17%
18%
15%
11%
Other or
Multiple
24%
15%
9%
39%
12%
Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Middle-Income Above Median Income
The severe shortage of
affordable homes for
extremely low-income
renters is systemic,
affecting every state and
metropolitan area.
16
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
number of homes with monthly rents less than $600
in ination-adjusted terms declined by four million
(La Jeunesse et al., 2019). e number of rental
units priced below $600 per month fell by three
million in just ve years between 2012 and 2017.
Meanwhile, the number of rental homes renting for
more than $1,000 per month increased by more than
ve million during the same period ( Joint Center
for Housing Studies, 2020). Between the summers
of 2018 and 2019, only 12% of newly constructed
apartments had an asking price of less than $1,050
per month.
e systemic, national shortage of aordable
housing for extremely low-income renters is
evidence of the need for deeply income-targeted
federal housing subsidies to serve them. Public
subsidies are needed both to subsidize the
production and operation of aordable homes for
the lowest-income renters and to provide rental
assistance that low-income families can utilize to
aord rental housing in the private market.
Unlike those of extremely low-income renters, the
housing needs of middle-income renters are largely
met in most areas of the country.
e shortages of aordable and
available rental housing for
middle-income renters with
incomes above 80% of AMI are
predominantly found in high-
cost pockets of the country where
new housing development has
not kept pace with the growth in
demand. Eleven of the 50 largest
metropolitan areas (23 of the
largest 100) have a shortage of
homes aordable and available to
renters with household incomes
up to the median income.
Even in these housing markets,
however, the cumulative shortage
of aordable and available rental
homes is largely attributable to the
signicant unmet housing needs
of people with the lowest incomes who must occupy
rental homes in the private-market that would
otherwise be aordable and available to higher-
income renters. More than 760,000 extremely
low-income households occupy rental homes they
cannot aord that would otherwise be aordable
and available to middle-income renters (Figure 13).
Housing advocates and scholars across the
ideological spectrum agree that local zoning
and other requirements of the development
approval process can articially constrain housing
development and, in turn, limit the ability of the
private market to serve middle-income renters
(Axel-Lute, 2017; Jacobus, 2017). Reducing local
barriers to the production of multifamily housing
through reform of local zoning and upscale design
standards could result in a greater supply of housing
and alleviate rent pressures in the market for
households with moderate incomes. Zoning reform
could serve other laudable purposes, such as allowing
for more economic diversity in opportunity-rich
neighborhoods. Zoning reforms alone, however, will
not suciently improve the ability of extremely low-
FIGURE 13: EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS OCCUPYING UNITS AFFORDABLE
TO HIGHER INCOME GROUPS
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data. AMI = Area Median Income
2,506,566
Affordable to Very Low-Income
(30.1% - 50% of AMI)
3,612,741
Affordable to Low-Income
(50.1% - 80% of AMI)
764,601
Affordable to Middle-Income
(80.1% - 100% of AMI)
498,140
Above Median Income
(Over 100% of AMI)
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
17
income renters to aord the rents landlords need to
operate and adequately maintain housing.
FEDERAL POLICY SOLUTIONS
FOR THE LOWEST-INCOME
PEOPLE
e public and a growing number of congressional
leaders recognize the need for a signicant and
sustained federal commitment to housing programs
designed to meet the aordability needs of the
lowest-income families. Eighty-ve percent of
adults in a 2019 national poll believed that a safe,
decent, aordable place to live should be a national
priority, and 78% believed that government has
an important role to play in ensuring an adequate
supply of aordable homes, beliefs shared across
the political spectrum (Opportunity Starts at Home,
2019). e same poll found that 80% of adults
favored expanding federal housing programs to
ensure households with the lowest incomes and
greatest needs received rental assistance.
e solutions to the severe shortage of aordable
homes include the national Housing Trust Fund
(HTF), an annual block grant to states for the
creation, preservation, or rehabilitation of rental
housing for the lowest-income renters. e
distribution of HTF funds to each state and the
District of Columbia is determined by their shortage
of rental housing aordable and available to
extremely low-income and very low-income renters
and the extent to which these renters are severely
housing cost-burdened. At least 90% of HTF funds
must be used for rental housing and at least 75% of
the funds for rental housing must benet extremely
low-income households; 100% of HTF funds
must benet extremely low-income households
while the HTF is capitalized under $1 billion per
year. A review of the rst projects awarded HTF
money indicates the new program provides homes
for people experiencing homelessness, people with
disabilities, and seniors (NLIHC, 2018).
Members of the current Congress increasingly
support expanding the national HTF, having
introduced multiple bills to commit signicant
resources to do so. ese bills include the “American
Housing and Economic Mobility Act,” the “Ending
Homelessness Act,” the “Housing is Infrastructure
Act, ” the “Homes for All Act,” the “Fullling the
Promise of the Housing Trust Fund Act,” and the
“Pathway to Stable and Aordable Housing for All
Act.”
Expanding rental assistance programs, including the
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, is also
gaining increased congressional support and must
also be a signicant component of any strategy to
address the severe housing shortage and instability
faced by extremely low-income renters. Seventy-ve
percent of current HCV recipients are extremely
low-income (HUD, 2019). Voucher recipients nd
rental housing in the private market and contribute
30% of their adjusted gross incomes toward housing
costs. e voucher pays the remaining costs up
to the local housing agency’s payment standard.
Vouchers typically cost less than new production,
making them an ecient and eective form of
housing assistance in markets with an abundant
supply of vacant, physically adequate housing that
the lowest-income renters cannot aord without
help. A ban on source-of-income discrimination
against voucher holders by landlords would improve
the eectiveness of this rental assistance.
e “Pathway to Stable and Aordable Housing
for All Act” would fully fund Housing Choice
The solutions to the severe
shortage of affordable
homes include the
national HTF, an annual
block grant to states for
the creation, preservation,
or rehabilitation of rental
housing for the lowest-
income renters.
18
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
Vouchers and the “Family Stability and Opportunity
Vouchers Act” would create an additional 500,000
housing vouchers designed specically to allow low-
income families with children to move into high-
opportunity neighborhoods. e Act would provide
counseling and case management services to help
voucher holders nd homes in neighborhoods with
high-performing schools, strong job prospects, and
other resources.
We also must protect the existing supply of
aordable homes for the poorest renters. Signicant
capital investment is needed for the rehabilitation
and preservation of public housing. Seventy-two
percent of households living in public housing
are extremely low-income, with the average
annual household income of public housing
residents at $15,738 (HUD, 2019). Public housing
provides a deep subsidy to these households: their
contributions toward rent are 30% of their adjusted
gross incomes, and a congressionally appropriated
Public Housing Operating Fund covers the
remaining operating costs. e Public Housing
Capital Fund is appropriated by Congress for capital
improvements and repairs, but decades of under-
funding have created a signicant backlog of capital
needs. e public housing stock may need as much
as $56 billion in repairs, which threatens the quality
and even the existence of these homes (NLIHC,
2019b).
Beyond protecting the existing supply of public
housing, we should work to expand it. e Faircloth
Amendment, which limits the total number of
public housing units to 1999 levels, should be
repealed. e “Housing is Infrastructure Act of
2019” would invest more than $100 billion to
address the capital needs of public housing, create
homes through the national HTF, and address the
severe housing needs on tribal lands. e “Homes
for All Act” would repeal the Faircloth amendment
and invest $1 trillion for 9.5 million new public
housing apartments and 2.5 million deeply
aordable rental homes.
Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) must
also be adequately funded for preservation. PBRA
consists of rental contracts between HUD and
private-property owners who provide subsidized
housing for low-income renters. Tenants contribute
30% of their adjusted gross income toward the rent,
and HUD’s contribution covers the rest. e average
annual income of households living in housing
supported by Section 8 PBRA is $13,301 (HUD,
2019). Without adequate and timely appropriations
to renew expiring contracts, some of these rental
homes could be lost from the aordable housing
stock. Sucient funds should also be appropriated
to preserve the aordable housing supported by
the USDA’s Section 515 loan program, whose
rural tenants have an annual household income of
$13,112 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2019a).
Reforms to the federal tax code could also improve
our nation’s ability to stably house the poorest
renters. A deeply income-targeted, fully refundable
renters’ tax credit for housing cost-burdened renters
would help address the gap between housing costs
and the incomes of the lowest-income renters. e
credits could be based on the dierence between
30% of a renter’s household income and their actual
housing costs up to a modest price. e “Housing,
Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act” would
provide monthly tax credits to all cost-burdened
households for the dierence between 30% of their
income and the lesser of their monthly rent or the
small area fair market rent of their area. e “Rent
Relief Act” would also create a refundable tax credit
for cost-burdened renter households, targeted at
taxpayers earning less than $125,000 annually.
Congress should also expand and reform the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program
to better target the housing needs of extremely
low-income households. LIHTC is the largest
production subsidy for aordable housing in the U.S.
Beyond protecting the
existing supply of public
housing, we should work
to expand it.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
19
LIHTC rents, however, are not typically aordable
to extremely low-income renters without additional
rental assistance. NLIHC supports reforms to better
serve people with the lowest incomes, including a
50% basis boost in tax credits for developments that
set aside at least 20% of their housing for extremely
low-income renters. e “Aordable Housing Tax
Credit Improvement Act” would provide such a
basis boost, as well as incentives to build in rural
communities and on tribal lands, which have unique
barriers to development.
Congress should also create a National Housing
Stabilization Fund to provide emergency assistance
to low-income households facing housing instability,
eviction, or homelessness after an economic shock.
Modest temporary assistance could help households
stay in their homes after a short-term job loss or
unexpected emergency expense, reducing the long-
term negative impact of these events. e “Eviction
Crisis Act” would create such a fund (“Emergency
Assistance Fund”) to provide direct, short-term
nancial assistance and stability services to low-
income households facing eviction or homelessness.
S
table, decent, accessible housing is a
fundamental need. Housing provides
shelter, security, privacy, and a place for
sleep. Housing is instrumental, and in some
cases necessary, for hygiene, nutrition, and
health (Bratt, Stone, & Hartman, 2006). Housing
provides a space to cultivate and protect some
of the most important personal relationships
in our lives, with partners and family (Inness,
1992). Housing is an essential ingredient for
many elements of individuals’ well-being –
their health, control over their environment,
and the ability to develop their emotional lives,
plans, and connections to their community
(Nussbaum, 2011; Kimhur, 2020). When
housing is unaffordable, people are forced
to sacrice other essential needs or suffer
profound harms.
Decent, stable, and affordable homes
are a major social determinant of health.
When housing costs drive households into
poorer-quality housing, those households
are at greater risk of respiratory conditions,
injuries, and exposure to harsh temperatures,
pollutants, and allergenic triggers (Shaw,
2004). Families with housing cost burdens
or behind on rent are at greater risk of poor
health and higher maternal stress (Sandel
et al., 2018; Bills, West, & Hargrove, 2019).
Housing instability and homelessness can
cause signicant disruptions to critical
health services, especially for chronically ill
individuals, and increase adverse mental
health outcomes related to stress (Maqbool,
Viveiros, & Ault 2015).
Affordable homes are important for academic
achievement. Low-income children in
affordable housing score better on tests
of cognitive development than those in
unaffordable housing (Newman & Holupka,
2015; Newman & Holupka, 2014). Parents
who are no longer housing cost-burdened
can invest more in education and enrichment.
Affordable housing may allow families to
remain stably in place. Housing instability
can disrupt learning and negatively impact
academic achievement, especially among
elementary and middle-school students
(Brennan, Reed, Sturtevant, 2014; Herbers et
al., 2012; Voight, Shinn, & Nation, 2012).
Affordable housing can be a source of
economic opportunity. Stable housing is often
necessary for individuals to maintain steady
HOUSING JUSTICE
20
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
employment (Desmond & Gershenson, 2016).
When households are enabled to live in high-
opportunity neighborhoods, they have higher
annual incomes and higher lifetime earnings
(Chetty, Hendren, & Katz, 2015). Investments
in affordable housing can improve local
economies by creating jobs and attracting
families into the community (NLIHC, 2017).
The shortage of affordable and available
housing for people with extremely low
incomes is caused by structural features of
our social, political, and economic system,
not the personal failings of individuals. First,
a private housing market driven by economic
incentives will continually fail to meet the
needs of extremely low-income households.
Since it responds to opportunities for prot
rather than genuine housing need, private
industry will at best serve only a segment
of the population
with extremely low
incomes. Second, the
way in which income
and other resources
are distributed in our
society keeps a large
number of people in
poverty. What people earn in the labor market
is not determined simply by how hard they
work or what they deserve. The strength of
the economy, changing demands for different
kinds of talents, and labor’s weakening
bargaining power all play a signicant role in
determining wages (Olsaretti, 2004; Folbre,
2016). The labor market continues to create
low-wage work, and our political institutions
do not sufciently respond to the resulting
nancial needs of low-wage workers, leaving
many to struggle to afford basic needs.
In addition, the lack of adequate nancial
support for people outside the labor market –
for the elderly, people with disabilities, people
engaged in socially valuable but unpaid work
(such as caregivers), for example – increases
the numbers of people with low incomes
unable to afford their housing.
Features of our social, political, and economic
system also explain why certain groups in our
society—including Black people, Hispanics,
and Native Americans—are much more likely
to face the brunt of the shortage of affordable
and available housing. Past injustices, and the
absence of sufcient political responses to
remedy them, shape the opportunities people
have today. The intergenerational impacts
of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and
economic exploitation help to explain today’s
severe racial wealth inequality (Jones, 2017).
The disadvantaged circumstances that
children inherit become harder to overcome
as intergenerational economic mobility
declines (Chetty et al., 2017). When extremely
low-income renters
struggle to secure
affordable housing, it is
much more likely due
to systemic obstacles
than personal failings.
Because the affordable
housing shortage has been created and
perpetuated by our social, political, and
economic system, allowing it to persist is an
injustice. A just society is one in which the
ground rules are fair and justiable to all. We
cannot justify a system that persistently creates
deprivation when alternatives exist. Investing
in proven affordable housing solutions for
those most in need, then, is not only prudent
or generous – we have a shared moral
responsibility to rectify systemic injustices
(Young, 2011). Housing justice requires that,
at a minimum, no one is denied the ability
to meet their own basic needs because of
the systematic failures of our political and
economic system.
We cannot justify a
system that persistently
creates deprivation when
alternatives exist.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
21
CONCLUSION
e shortage of seven million rental homes
aordable and available to extremely low-income
households is a nationwide problem. e shortage
inicts substantial harms on the lowest-income
households, especially people of color: people who
lack the foundation of a stable, secure home suer
from worse health, poorer educational advancement,
and less economic mobility. e shortage at the
lowest end of the market leads to cumulative
shortages of aordable and available rental housing
for higher-income households as well. e private
market cannot and will not, on its own, build and
operate homes extremely low-income families can
aord. We need a sustained public commitment to
ensure the lowest-income households in America
have decent, stable, accessible, and aordable homes.
ABOUT THE DATA
is report is based on data from the 2018
American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use
Microdata Sample (PUMS). e ACS is an annual
nationwide survey of approximately 3.5 million
addresses. It provides timely data on the social,
economic, demographic, and housing characteristics
of the U.S. population. PUMS contains individual
ACS questionnaire records for a subsample of
housing units and their occupants.
PUMS data are available for geographic areas
called Public Use Microdata Sample Areas
(PUMAs). Individual PUMS records were matched
to their appropriate metropolitan area or given
nonmetropolitan status using the Missouri Census
Data Center’s MABLE/Geocorr 2014 Geographic
Correspondence Engine. If at least 50% of a PUMA
was in a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), we
assigned it to the CBSA. Otherwise, the PUMA
was given nonmetropolitan status.
Households were categorized by their incomes
(as extremely low-income, very low-income, low-
income, middle-income, or above median income)
relative to their metropolitan area’s median family
income or state’s nonmetropolitan median family
income, adjusted for household size. Housing units
were categorized according to the income needed to
aord the rent and utilities without spending more
than 30% of income. e categorization of units was
done without regard to the incomes of the current
tenants. Housing units without complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities were not included in the housing
supply.
After households and units were categorized,
we analyzed the extent to which households in
each income category resided in housing units
categorized as aordable for that income level.
For example, we estimated the number of units
aordable for extremely low-income households that
were occupied by extremely low-income households
and by other income groups.
We categorized households into mutually exclusive
household types in the following order: (1)
householder or householder’s spouse were at least
62 years of age (seniors); (2) householder and
householder’s spouse (if applicable) were younger
than 62 and at least one of them had a disability
(disabled); (3) non-senior non-disabled household.
We also categorized households into more detailed
mutually exclusive categories in the following
order: (1) elderly; (2) disabled; (3) householder and
householder’s spouse (if applicable) were younger
than 62 and unemployed; (4) householder and
householder’s spouse (if applicable) were enrolled in
school; (5) non-senior non-disabled single adult was
living with a young child under seven years of age or
person with disability.
More information about the ACS PUMS les is
available at https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/technical-documentation/pums/about.
html
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For further information regarding this report and
the methodology, please contact Andrew Aurand,
NLIHC Vice President for Research, at
[email protected] or 202-662-1530 x245.
22
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
REFERENCES
Axel-Lute, M. (2017). Regulation and housing
supply: Where the left & right agree (sort of ).
Shelterforce, 186.
Bailey, P. (2020). Housing and health partners can
work together to close the housing aordability gap.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Bills, K. L., West, S. M., & Hargrove, J. (2019).
Housing cost burden and maternal stress among
very low income mothers. Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare, 46(1), 73-89.
Bratt, R. G., Stone, M. E., & Hartman, C. (2006).
A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Brennan, M., Reed, P., Sturtevant, L. (2014). e
impacts of aordable housing on education: A research
summary. Washington, DC: National Housing
Conference.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. (2015). e
eects of exposure to better neighborhoods on
children: New evidence from the Moving to
Opportunity experiment. American Economic Review,
106(4), 855-902.
Choi, A., Dedman, B., Herbert, K., & Winslow, O.
(2019). Long Island Divided. Newsday.
Coates, T. (2014). e case for reparations. e
Atlantic.
Couloute, L. (2018). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness
Among Formerly Incarcerated People. Northampton, MA:
Prison Policy Initiative.
Desmond, M. & Gershenson, C. (2016). Housing
and employment insecurity among the working
poor. Social Problems 63: 46–67.
Faber, J. W. (2013). Racial dynamics of subprime
mortgage lending at the peak. Housing Policy Debate
23(2), 328-349.
Fischer, W. & Sard, B. (2017). Chart book: Federal
housing spending is poorly matched to need. Washington,
DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Folbre, N. (2016). Just deserts? Earnings inequality
and bargaining power in the U.S. economy.
Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable
Growth.
Gould, E. & Wilson, V. (2019). Wage growth is
weak for a tight labor market – and the pace of
wage growth is uneven across race and gender.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Guzman, G. G. (2019). American Community
Survey Briefs, Household Income: 2018. U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Herbers, J.E., Cutuli, J.J., Supko, L.M., Heistad,
D., Chan, C., Hinz, E., Masten, A. (2012). Early
reading skills and academic achievement trajectories
of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high
residential mobility. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 366-
374.
Inness, J. (1992). Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobus, R. (2017). Why aren’t we building middle
income housing? Shelterforce.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University. (2019). e state of the nation’s housing.
Cambridge, MA: Author.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University. (2020). America’s rental housing 2020.
Cambridge, MA: Author.
Jones, J. (2017). e racial wealth gap: How African-
Americans have been shortchanged out of the
materials to build wealth. Economic Policy Institute.
Kimhur, B. (2020). How to apply the capability
approach to housing policy? Concepts, theories, and
challenges. Housing, eory and Society. Online rst.
Kochhar, R. & Cilluo, A. (2018). Key ndings on
the rise in income inequality within America’s racial
and ethnic groups. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
23
La Jeunesse, E., Hermann, A., McCue, D., &
Spader, J. (2019). Documenting the long-run decline in
low-cost rental units in the US by state. Cambridge, MA:
Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Maqbool, N., Viveiros, J., & Ault, M. (2015). e
impacts of aordable housing on health: A research summary.
Washington, DC: National Housing Conference,
Center for Housing Policy.
Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development. (2020). State public housing programs.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2017). A
place to call home: e case for increased federal investments in
aordable housing. Washington, DC: Author.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2018).
Getting started: First homes being built with 2016 national
Housing Trust Fund awards. Washington, DC: Author.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2019a). Out
of reach: e high cost of housing. Washington, DC: Author.
National Low Income Housing Coalition (2019b).
Public housing. Advocate’s Guide 2019. Washington, DC:
Author.
Newman, S.J. & Holupka, C.S. (2014). Housing
aordability and investments in children. Journal of
Housing Economics, 24(June), 89-100.
Newman, S.J. & Holupka, C.S. (2015). Housing
aordability and child well-being. Housing Policy Debate,
25(1), 116-151.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: e
Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Olsaretti, S. (2004). Liberty, Desert, and the Market.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Opportunity Starts at Home. (2019). e need for action
on housing aordability. Washington, DC: Author.
Peterson, R. (2016). Re-arrests of homeless defendants in
New York City. Research brief #39. New York, NY: New
York City Criminal Justice Agency Research Brief.
Phillips, M. (2020). Stocks continue record climb as
earnings overshadow impeachment. New York Times,
January 16.
Pindus, N., Kingsley, G. T., Biess, J., Levy, D., Simington,
J., Hayes, C. (2017). Housing needs of American Indians
and Alaska Natives in tribal areas. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøer, A. H.
(2017). Meta-analysis of eld experiments shows no
change in racial discrimination in hiring over time.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America (PNAS) 114(41): 10870-10875.
Rice, L. & Swesnik, D. (2012). Discriminatory eects of
credit scoring on communities of color. Washington, DC:
National Fair Housing Alliance.
Ross, M. & Bateman, N. (2019). Meet the low-wage
workforce. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Rothstein, R. (2017). e color of law: A forgotten history of
how our government segregated America. New York, NY:
Liveright.
Sandel, M., Sheward, R., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Coleman,
S., Frank, D.A., Chilton, M., . . . Cutts, D. (2018).
Unstable housing and caregiver and child health in renter
families. Pediatrics, 141(2).
Semega, J., Kollar, M., Creamer, J. & Mohanty, A. (2019).
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018. U.S.
Census Bureau.
Shaw, M. (2004). Housing and public health. Annual
Review of Public Health 25: 397-418.
Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing aordability? e
case for the residual income approach. Housing Policy
Debate 17(1): 151-184.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Unemployment
rate 3.6 percent in April 2019, lowest since December
1969. U.S. Department of Labor.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Median weekly
earnings of full-time workers increased 4.0 percent in
2019. U.S. Department of Labor.
24
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2020
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2019a). 2018 Rural
Development Multi-Family Housing Annual Fair
Occupancy Report. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2019b). Ocial USDA
food plans: Cost of food at home at four levels, U.S. average,
November 2018. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(2013). Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic
Minorities 2012.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(2019). A picture of subsidized households [Data le].
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(2020). 2019 AHAR: Part 1 – PIT Estimates of
Homelessness in the U.S.
Williams, J. & Wilson, V. (2019). Black workers endure
persistent racial disparities in employment outcomes.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for Justice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
APPENDIX A: STATE COMPARISONS
States in RED have less than the national level of affordable and available units per 100 households at or below
the extremely low income (ELI) threshold
Surplus (Decit) of Affordable
and Available Units
Affordable and Available Units per 100
Households at or below Threshold
% Within Each Income Category with
Severe Housing Cost Burden
State At or below ELI
At or below 50%
AMI
At or
below ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or below
80% AMI
At or below
100% AMI
At or
below ELI
> ELI to 50%
AMI
51% to 80%
AMI
81% to 100%
AMI
Alabama (78,840) (53,922) 56 80 110 112 66% 27% 4% 0%
Alaska (13,927)
(11,330)
29
63 103 110 72% 48% 4% 1%
Arizona (134,758)
(159,547)
26
48 95 104 73% 34% 7% 1%
Arkansas (55,362) (43,093) 52 74 107 109 63% 21% 2% 1%
California (998,613)
(1,453,223)
23
32 68 86 77% 48% 17% 5%
Colorado (114,940)
(150,637)
31
50 94 103 73% 37% 8% 0%
Connecticut (86,836) (82,952) 41 65 100 105 63% 26% 5% 0%
Delaware (15,560) (18,445) 36 57 101 105 76% 37% 7% 1%
District of Columbia (29,967) (22,396) 41 70 98 103 70% 22% 8% 2%
Florida (400,033)
(576,339)
26
36 77 96 79% 56% 19% 3%
Georgia (195,926) (215,834) 41 60 101 108 73% 34% 7% 1%
Hawaii (23,143) (42,468) 39 41 72 91 66% 52% 21% 6%
Idaho (24,295) (28,048) 44 61 96 101 65% 23% 5% 3%
Illinois (289,706) (259,117) 36 65 99 103 71% 24% 5% 1%
Indiana (132,329) (80,981) 38 77 104 106 71% 19% 4% 2%
Iowa (53,135) (13,134) 46 92 107 107 66% 15% 1% 0%
Kansas (55,461) (33,347) 41 79 107 108 70% 22% 3% 1%
Kentucky (74,940) (65,491) 53 72 104 106 66% 23% 3% 1%
Louisiana (105,214) (114,304) 42 58 101 108 69% 35% 8% 0%
Maine (21,015) (22,129) 51 70 102 105 59% 18% 3% 1%
Maryland (127,861)
(132,506)
34
58 103 107 73% 26% 4% 1%
Massachusetts (159,578) (174,072) 48 62 91 97 58% 32% 8% 2%
Michigan (189,905) (163,526) 40 67 100 103 69% 25% 3% 1%
Minnesota (104,314) (86,034) 41 71 99 103 63% 25% 4% 2%
Mississippi (52,513) (52,626) 55 67 106 110 67% 25% 7% 0%
Missouri (117,557) (83,583) 42 75 104 106 70% 20% 3% 1%
Montana (19,589) (13,368) 39 75 104 106 68% 24% 3% 0%
Nebraska (37,587) (29,543) 37 72 101 102 69% 24% 3% 1%
Nevada (79,620)
(96,081)
18
40 92 106 81% 43% 10% 2%
New Hampshire (23,983) (18,704) 39 75 104 106 65% 22% 5% 2%
New Jersey (213,640)
(275,931)
29
44 89 98 74% 39% 7% 2%
New Mexico (41,113) (43,756) 46 59 99 107 62% 38% 8% 2%
New York (612,854) (704,734) 36 53 84 96 70% 39% 10% 3%
North Carolina (188,866) (191,310) 43 65 103 107 70%
29% 5% 1%
North Dakota (12,980) 2,432 51 105 114 113 66% 8% 1% 1%
Ohio (256,875) (140,784) 44 80 104 105 67% 18% 2% 2%
Oklahoma (72,473) (59,249) 45 71 106 107 68% 23% 3% 2%
Oregon (96,643)
(123,172)
28
47 90 99 74% 36% 7% 1%
Pennsylvania (276,250) (229,455) 38 68 99 102 70% 26% 4% 1%
Rhode Island (23,302) (20,816) 51 71 101 106 55% 28% 3% 3%
South Carolina (82,064) (78,907) 47 67 104 108 70% 33% 7% 1%
South Dakota (14,466) (6,791) 49 86 110 108 63% 17% 0% 2%
Tennessee (126,597) (119,876) 47 66 102 107 66% 27% 5% 1%
Texas (611,181)
(718,650)
29
49 100 108 73% 33% 6% 1%
Utah (40,725)
(46,028)
31
58 102 105 72% 22% 4% 4%
Vermont (11,688) (12,015) 42 62 100 103 67% 21% 6% 1%
Virginia (157,087) (177,818) 36 57 99 105 70% 33% 4% 1%
Washington (153,260)
(195,249)
31
50 90 99 72% 36% 8% 1%
West Virginia (24,297) (24,257) 62 74 105 108 65% 22% 3% 0%
Wisconsin (125,011)
(80,177)
33
76 101 103 71% 18% 3% 1%
Wyoming (8,201) (165) 50 99 122 120 70% 14% 5% 0%
USA Totals (6,966,080) (7,543,488) 36 57 93 101 70.8% 32.9% 7.8% 2.0%
Source: NLIHC Tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data
APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN COMPARISONS
Metropolitan Areas in RED have less than the national level of affordable and available units per 100 households
at or below the extremely low income threshold
Surplus (Decit)
of Affordable and
Available Units
Affordable and Available Units
per 100 Households at or below
Threshold
% Within Each Income Category
with Severe Housing Cost Burden
Metro Area
At or below
ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or
below ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or below
80% AMI
At or below
100% AMI
At or
below ELI
31% to
50% AMI
51% to
80% AMI
81% to
100% AMI
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA (108,975)
(133,694)
29
53 99 107 76% 37% 7% 1%
Austin-Round Rock, TX (60,294)
(73,625)
14
42 101 107 85% 31% 5% 0%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD (58,839) (54,611) 40 64 104 109 70% 30% 5% 1%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (116,220) (129,478) 47 60 88 96 59% 33% 9% 2%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY (27,809) (20,130) 42 74 101 102 69% 26% 5% 3%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC (40,545)
(45,867)
33
61 103 109 71% 32% 4% 1%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (223,280)
(229,192)
31
58 96 102 72% 26% 5% 1%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN (49,681) (25,251) 39 82 104 103 70% 15% 2% 5%
Cleveland-Elyria, OH (58,388) (30,867) 41 79 103 104 70% 20% 3% 2%
Columbus, OH (51,507)
(36,299)
29
70 103 105 69% 19% 2% 1%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (151,930)
(193,639)
21
46 100 108 80% 32% 7% 1%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (64,265)
(90,636)
30
45 93 103 74% 40% 7% 0%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI (95,243) (78,206) 36 66 98 102 72% 25% 5% 2%
Fresno, CA (29,514)
(36,454)
25
37 77 91 68% 37% 18% 3%
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT (31,006) (21,219) 41 74 106 107 61% 18% 4% 0%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (168,750)
(208,590)
19
41 101 110 79% 35% 6% 2%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN (53,081)
(31,440)
23
72 105 107 78% 24% 4% 1%
Jacksonville, FL (25,349)
(37,023)
35
48 94 107 75% 47% 9% 1%
Kansas City, MO-KS (44,153) (32,665) 36 73 102 105 70% 19% 3% 1%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (64,415)
(80,453)
14
33 92 107 86% 50% 12% 2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (377,117)
(606,109)
20
24 56 77 81% 55% 21% 8%
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN (26,394) (20,335) 37 69 105 107 67% 28% 2% 1%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR (38,474)
(35,551)
34
57 103 109 78% 34% 7% 3%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL (132,582)
(217,159)
22
23 49 76 80% 71% 32% 7%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI (52,797)
(36,142)
25
69 99 103 75% 22% 4% 3%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
(75,972) (62,801) 37 69 98 103 67% 23% 5% 1%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN (35,667) (37,158) 40 63 97 106 66% 31% 5% 1%
New Orleans-Metairie, LA (35,674)
(47,044)
32
42 95 104 75% 49% 10% 1%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (629,672)
(825,207)
34
44 79 93 71% 43% 11% 3%
Oklahoma City, OK (33,282)
(28,058)
31
66 103 106 75% 25% 1% 3%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
(46,969)
(77,051)
20
26 75 100 83% 59% 17% 2%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (157,760)
(147,574)
29
59 98 102 75% 33% 5% 2%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (92,320)
(116,198)
18
42 94 103 77% 34% 7% 1%
Pittsburgh, PA
(42,126) (28,361) 51 80 100 103 62% 20% 3% 1%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA (53,989)
(73,973)
27
47 92 100 74% 36% 5% 1%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA (33,479) (29,349) 54 74 101 105 57% 25% 3% 3%
Raleigh, NC (21,797)
(20,523)
31
68 111 111 75% 19% 3% 1%
Richmond, VA (25,196)
(25,827)
31
60 101 104 74% 30% 2% 0%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (89,860)
(118,935)
18
34 72 89 79% 46% 18% 2%
Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA (69,000)
(83,327)
20
38 86 99 81% 41% 8% 1%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX (49,388) (63,059) 38 49 97 106 67% 41% 5% 0%
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA (84,939)
(141,236)
19
25 64 87 84% 55% 21% 6%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (126,164)
(147,693)
32
47 79 92 67% 37% 11% 1%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (40,274)
(54,340)
34
46 80 94 69% 37% 9% 1%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (83,500)
(115,658)
30
45 87 98 72% 41% 8% 1%
St. Louis, MO-IL (66,335)
(35,420)
34
79 105 106 73% 18% 3% 2%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (66,233)
(96,995)
25
35 86 101 79% 47% 14% 1%
Tucson, AZ (26,910)
(25,899)
30
56 100 106 71% 38% 7% 1%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC (37,090) (42,283) 36 56 97 105 71% 41% 4% 0%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
(135,023)
(161,728)
28
49 98 105 76% 27% 4% 1%
USA Totals (6,966,080)
(7,543,488)
36 57 93 101 70.8% 32.9% 7.8% 2.0%
Source: NLIHC Tabulations of 2018 ACS PUMS data
