Rebuilding Housing in Harvey’s Aftermath: Two Lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

by Jonathan Spader
Senior Research Associate

As floodwaters finally subside in Houston, and as Florida residents prepare for Irma, residents, civic leaders, and policymakers can glean two important lessons from the intensive efforts to rebuild homes and communities after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, two devastating storms that hit the U.S. in back-to-back succession in 2005. 

First, rebuilding residential properties is a lengthy process likely to take several years. Second, the rebuilding process will be especially lengthy for rental properties (as compared to owner-occupied homes), which could greatly affect the 950,000 renters (who account for 41 percent of households) in the greater Houston metropolitan area, as well as additional renters affected by Hurricane Harvey in elsewhere in Texas and in other states. The slower pace of rental rebuilding is due to several factors including both renters’ dependence on property owners to rebuild rental housing units and historical differences in the availability and terms of federal aid for rental property owners as compared to homeowners.

To be sure, the need for emergency assistance and shelter for displaced residents will continue for weeks to come. Nevertheless, Congress is already starting to discuss an aid package. Moreover, the extensive damage (and the need to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program before September 30) may spur new efforts to develop policies and programs to support housing recovery in the wake of future natural disasters. As policymakers, civic leaders, and local residents begin to focus on the rebuilding process, they might want to keep the following in mind.

Extensive flooding from Hurricane Harvey in Southeast Texas. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Daniel J. Martinez

1. Rebuilding residential properties takes time.

An initial lesson from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is that the rebuilding process takes time, with many properties continuing to show observable damage several years after the storms had passed. In early 2010—almost five years after both hurricanes made landfall—a HUD-commissioned study that I worked on surveyed the exterior conditions of properties damaged by those storms. The survey produced representative estimates of the rebuilding outcomes of properties that experienced “major” or “severe” damage—defined by FEMA as $5,200 or more in storm-related damage—that were located on significantly-affected blocks—defined as a city block on which three or more properties experienced “major” or “severe” damage.

The survey found that 17 percent of hurricane-damaged properties in Louisiana and Mississippi still showed substantial repair needs as of early 2010, almost five years after the storms had hit. Almost half these properties did not meet the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of a “habitable structure,” a housing unit that is closed to the elements with an intact roof, windows, and doors and does not show any positive evidence (e.g. a sign on the house) stating that the unit was condemned or was going to be demolished. Only 70 percent of hurricane-damaged properties in Louisiana and Mississippi were rebuilt by early 2010, and 13 percent contained cleared lots in which the damaged property had been removed from the parcel (Figure 1).

In the case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the properties that still were damaged included some whose owners had received rebuilding grants through federal programs designed to aid housing recovery. The largest source of assistance following the 2005 hurricanes was the $18.9 billion special Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) appropriations passed by Congress between 2005 and 2008. Some portion of the properties with remaining damage likely also reflect abandonment by owners who moved elsewhere in the wake of the hurricanes. For such properties, funding for demolition, rehabilitation, and land banking may be necessary to transition the properties to a new use, and potentially to support efforts to encourage residents to rebuild in areas with lower flood risks.

Notes: Sample is representative of properties in Louisiana and Mississippi that experienced major or severe hurricane damage and that were located on significantly-affected blocks. Rebuilt structures are residential structures that do not show substantial repair needs as defined in Turnham (2010). Cleared lots contain an empty lot or a foundation with no standing structure. Damaged structures are residential structures that show substantial repair needs—and include all uninhabitable structures. Uninhabitable structures are residential structures that do not meet the Census definition of habitability. 

Source: Spader (2015).

2. Rental properties were rebuilt more slowly than homeowner properties.

A second lesson from the rebuilding process following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is that rental properties were rebuilt more slowly than owner-occupied homes. This likely was due to several factors. While homeowners directly control the rebuilding progress of their home, renters are dependent on landlords’ rebuilding decisions. Smaller “mom-and-pop” landlords may also be slower to rebuild investment properties if their own home is also damaged. And policymakers have been wary of providing rebuilding assistance to rental property owners who did not purchase sufficient insurance.

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both Louisiana and Mississippi used the CDBG special appropriations for disaster recovery to create rebuilding assistance programs for homeowners and small rental property owners. (Texas, which faced less damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, created only a homeowner program.) In both Louisiana and Mississippi, the homeowner programs covered much of the difference between the estimated cost to rebuild and the amount available to the homeowner from insurance and other rebuilding-assistance programs. Conversely, the grant programs for 1-4 unit small rental properties included a more complex set of eligibility requirements that included commitments for the rebuilt units to be rented to qualifying low- and moderate-income tenants. The result was that few rental property owners applied for and received rebuilding assistance, compared to widespread take-up of the homeowner assistance programs. While concerns about the incentive effects associated with bailing out under-insured investors are reasonable, a secondary effect was to reduce the number of rebuilt properties available to renters.

Figure 2 displays the share of hurricane-damaged properties on significantly-affected blocks that received a rebuilding grant through the CDBG-funded homeowner and small rental programs, along with the share of homeowner and small rental properties that were rebuilt by early 2010. The results show that 58 percent of hurricane-damaged homeowner properties in Louisiana and Mississippi received a rebuilding grant, compared to 10 percent of small rental properties. While this rental figure is limited to 1-4 unit small rental properties, a GAO report similarly found that federal assistance through CDBG, the Individual and Households Program, and the Home Disaster Loan Program together reached only 18 percent of all damaged rental units (including units in larger multi-family buildings), compared to 62 percent of damaged homeowner units. The rebuilding outcomes documented in the HUD-commissioned survey also showed sizable gaps, with 74 percent of homeowner properties rebuilt by early 2010 compared to 60 percent of rental properties.

 Source: Spader and Turnham (2014); Spader (2015)

A final question for policymakers is whether to use this opportunity to create a permanent program to support housing recovery following natural disasters. While Congress has relied on the CDBG program for this purpose since the early 1990s, its role is currently defined by the special appropriations legislation drafted following each individual disaster. Making disaster recovery a permanent function of the CDBG program (or creating some other permanent program for housing recovery) would allow HUD to develop permanent regulations and program guidance in anticipation of future disasters. While it is too late for this change to benefit victims of Hurricane Harvey, it might improve preparedness for the next disaster.

Who Owns Rental Properties, and is it Changing?

by Hyojung Lee
Postdoctoral Fellow

Institutional investors own a growing share of the nation's 22.5 million rental properties and a majority of the 47.5 million units contained in those properties, according to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's recently released 2015 Rental Housing Finance Survey (RHFS), a survey administered by the Census Bureau. The changes are notable because virtually all of the household growth since the financial crisis has occurred in rental units, with more than half of the growth occurring in single-family rental units.

According to the RHFS, individual investors were the biggest group in the rental housing market in 2015, accounting for 74.4 percent, or 16.7 million rental properties, followed by limited liability partnerships (LLPs), limited partnerships (LPs), or limited liability companies (LLCs) (14.8 percent); trustees for estates (4.1 percent); and nonprofit organizations (1.6 percent) (Table 1). However, because the share of rental properties owned by individual investors tends to decrease with the property size, individual investors owned less than half (47.8 percent) of rental units, followed by LLPs, LPs, or LLCs (33.2 percent), trustees for estates (3.3 percent), real estate corporations (3.3 percent), and nonprofit organizations (3.2 percent).

Source: Rental Housing Finance Survey, 2015.

When combined with data from the 2012 RHFS and the 2001 Residential Finance Survey (RFS), the new data also show that the number and share of rental properties owned by institutional investors increased for all types of properties between 2001 and 2015 (Figure 1). For example, while about a third of properties with 5 to 24 units were owned by non-individual investors in 2001, that share soared to 47 percent in 2012 and about two-thirds in 2015. Similarly, about 66.1 percent of properties with 25 to 49 units were owned by institutional entities in 2001, which rose to 77 percent in 2012 and about 81 percent in 2015.

Source: Residential Finance Survey, 2001; Rental Housing Finance Survey, 2012 and 2015.
Note: The condominiums and mobile homes the 2001 RFS were excluded as they are excluded in the 2012 and 2015 RHFS. Single-family units were not counted in the 2012 RHFS.

While individual investors (often called "mom-and-pop landlords") still owned about three-quarters of all single-family rental properties in 2015, the share of those properties owned by institutional investors rose from 17.3 percent in 2001 to 24.5 percent in 2015. However, during this time, many individual landlords reportedly created their own LLCs and transferred ownership of their property to protect themselves from liabilities and take advantage of tax benefits. As a result, the figures for single-family rentals may understate the number of mom-and-pop landlords.

Finally, the 2015 RHFS also provides useful information about when these changes occurred. Overall, non-individual investors accounted for about 16 percent of rental properties acquired from 1980 to 2004. That changed dramatically in the years after the financial crisis. Non-individual investors bought 28 percent of rental properties sold between 2010 and 2012 and 49.3 percent sold between 2013 and 2015 (Figure 2). Moreover, this shift was particularly pronounced for properties with 1 to 4 units (compared to those with 5 or more units).

Source: Rental Housing Finance Survey, 2015.

Despite potential implications for both renters and the broader housing market, there have been relatively few studies assessing the impacts of changing ownership patterns for rental properties. However, some research suggest that the changes are more than just paperwork. Illustratively, a 2016 discussion paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta reported that large corporate landlords and private equity investors of single-family rental homes in Fulton county, Georgia were far more likely to file eviction notices than small landlords in the county. Hopefully, the changes documented in the 2015 RHFS will spur additional research on how ownership patterns affect such key issues as rental affordability, housing instability, and the upkeep of rental units.

Wait... What? Ten Surprising Findings from the 2017 State of the Nation’s Housing Report

by Daniel McCue
Senior Research Associate

Every year, when we release our State of the Nation’s Housing report, we’re asked some variation of the question: “What surprised you in this year’s report?” Given all the time and effort that goes analyzing the data and writing the report, we are so close to it that little surprises us by the time of publication. Nevertheless, here are 10 findings in this year’s report that were new and maybe even a bit surprising:

1. For-sale inventories dropped even lower over the past year.   

For the fourth year in a row, the inventory of homes for sale across the US not only failed to recover, but dropped yet again. At the end of 2016 there were an historically low 1.65 million homes for sale nationwide, which at the current sales rate was just 3.6 months of supply - almost half of the 6.0 months level that is considered a balanced market.

2. Fewer homes were built over the last 10 years than any 10-year period in recent history.

Even with the recent recovery in both single-family and multifamily construction, markets nationwide are still feeling the effects of the deep and extended decline in housing construction. Over the past 10 years, just 9 million new housing units were completed and added to the housing stock. This was the lowest 10-year period on records dating back to the 1970s, and far below the 14 and 15 million units averaged over the 1980s and 1990s.

3. Single-family construction grew at a faster pace than multifamily construction.

The slow recovery in single-family construction picked up its pace in 2016. For the first time since the Great Recession, the rate of growth in single-family construction outpaced multifamily construction.

4. Smaller homes may be coming back.
Behind the growth in single-family construction, and as a new development in 2016, construction of smaller homes is back on the rise. The median square footage of newly completed single-family homes declined slightly, due to increase in construction of smaller-sized homes (less than 1,800 sqft).
 
5. Rental markets are still strong.  

Although there are signs of moderation, the slowdown in multifamily rental markets appears to be limited, so far, to a small number of markets. Indeed, last year, multifamily construction levels were still on the rise in most of the country, rents declined in just 10 of the 100 markets, multifamily loan originations and lending volumes both hit new record highs, and rental vacancy rates were at a 30-year low.

6. Long-term, metro-area home price trends show surprisingly wide variations.

Home prices have rebounded widely across the nation. In 2016, prices were up in 97 of 100 metros, and 41 metros had regained their nominal peak price levels from the mid-2000s. Over the longer period of time, however, the combined impact of the boom and bust has resulted in significant differences in home price appreciation across the country. In some metros (particularly on the coasts) real home prices have grown by 50 percent or more since 2000, while prices in 16 of the top 100 metros (mainly in the Midwest and South) were below 2000 levels, after adjusting for inflation.

7. The 12-year decline in the US homeownership rate may be nearing an end.

Homeownership rates flattened last year and the number of homeowners increased for the first time since 2006, suggesting trends in homeownership may be strengthening. In addition, first-time homebuyers accounted for a higher share of sales in 2016 than the year before. Still, lending remained skewed to highest credit score borrowers.

8. The homeownership gap between whites and African-Americans widened to its largest disparity since WWII.

The post-2004 decline in homeownership has been especially severe for African-Americans and has pushed black homeownership rates to fully 29.7 percentage points lower than that for whites. Comparing census data going back to WWII, the white-black difference in homeownership rates has never been wider.

9. More than half of all poor now live in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Poverty is growing, concentrating, and suburbanizing all at the same time. Overall, the total number of people living in poverty in the US increased by nearly 14 million in 2000-2015. Moreover, 54 percent of the nation’s poor live in high-poverty neighborhoods (those with poverty rates over 20 percent).

10. Poverty is growing across metros and in rural areas.

Poverty has been on the rise throughout cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Indeed, while the number of poor living in high-poverty tracts in dense, urban areas grew by 46 percent between 2000 and 2015, the number of poor living in high-poverty tracts in moderate- and lower density suburban areas more than doubled.

Read the full State of the Nation’s Housing report on our website.

When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism

by Michael Hankinson
Meyer Fellow

In theory, renters and homeowners disagree about proposals to build new housing in their communities, particularly if that housing is close to where they live. However, in practice, this is not always the case. 

Rather, in a new Joint Center working paper that is based on new national-level experimental data and city-specific behavioral data, I find that in high-housing cost cities, renters and homeowners both oppose new residential developments proposed for their neighborhoods. However, in high-cost markets renters are still more likely than homeowners to support citywide increases in the supply of housing. Since changes in city governments over the past several decades have generally strengthened the power of neighborhood-level opponents to proposed projects, my findings help explain why it is so hard to build new housing in expensive cities even when there is citywide support for that housing.

NIMBYism and the Rising Cost of Housing

Since 1970, housing prices in the nation’s most expensive metropolitan areas have dramatically increased. Real prices have doubled in New York City and Los Angeles and nearly tripled in San Francisco. Driving this appreciation is an inability of new housing supply to keep up with demand. Even accounting for the cost of materials and natural geographic constraints on supply, the dominant factor behind this decoupling of supply and demand is political regulation, such as limits on the density of new housing developments and caps on the number of permits issued by a localities’ government.

                                               

These limits are a classic example of the NIMBY (Not in My BackYard) phenomenon. Even if residents support a citywide increase in the supply of housing, they may still oppose specific projects in their neighborhood. This seeming disconnect between views on citywide and local development policies creates a classic collective action problem for those policymakers who must find ways to reconcile the conflicting views.  

Photo by Michael Hogan/Flickr

Despite its popularity as a scapegoat, there is no individual-level, empirical data on how NIMBYism operates and among whom. Students of urban politics generally assume that homeowners have strong NIMBY tendencies not only because they benefit from rising house prices but also because they worry that nearby new housing units, particularly nearby subsidized housing units, might decrease the value of their home.

There is less consensus on (or studies of) how renters view new development. New supply may help ease prices for renters but their pro-development views may not be reflected in local policies because renters are less likely to become politically involved than highly motivated homeowners.  Alternatively, renters might not favor new projects if they believe the units will increase demand in their neighborhood, which, in turn, will lead to increased housing prices. To date, however, there has been very little research on how renters view development projects and whether their views differ from those of homeowners.

                                               

Measuring NIMBYism

To measure NIMBYism and general support for new housing, I collected two unique datasets. I conducted the first experimental tests of NIMBYism through an online survey of 3,019 respondents across 655 cities in 47 states. Respondents were asked about their support for development policies, including whether they would support a 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply, with the question customized to each respondent’s city, stating how many homes and apartments currently exist and how many more would be built. Respondents also participated in an experiment where they were presented with two housing developments and asked which of the two proposals they preferred for their city. Each proposed development was described using several attributes, such as height and affordability level. To measure NIMBYism, respondents were also told how far each the of developments would be from their home, from two miles away to ⅛ mile away. By randomly varying this distance along with the other attributes, I was able to measure respondents’ sensitivity to proximity (NIMBYism), holding all other attributes equal.

To supplement this national survey, I also conducted a 1,660-person exit poll during the 2015 San Francisco election. Voters at 26 polling locations were asked their opinions on several housing-related ballot propositions similar to those presented in the national survey.

When Renters Behave Like Homeowners

As noted, renters and homeowners are expected to disagree on support for new housing, with NIMBY homeowners opposing citywide and neighborhood development and renters likely supporting the new supply. In line with existing theory, homeowners in my national survey largely opposed the proposed 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply (28 percent approval), while a majority of renters supported the new supply (59 percent approval). Likewise, when asked in the experiment which of two randomly generated buildings they would prefer for their city, homeowners exhibited consistent NIMBYism, preferring buildings that were farther away from their home. In contrast, renters on average did not pick buildings based on distance from their home. If anything, renters preferred affordable housing that was closer to their home, displaying a YIMBY or ‘Yes in My BackYard’ attitude. In short, homeowners and renters tend to have very different attitudes towards both NIMBYism and the citywide housing supply.

However, in high-rent cities, renters look far more like homeowners. Instead of paying little attention to the location of proposed new housing, renters in expensive cities are just as NIMBY towards market-rate housing as homeowners. Moreover, this renter opposition to nearby development does not mean they support less new development overall. In fact, renters in expensive cities show just as much support for a 10 percent increase in their city’s housing supply as renters in more affordable cities. The main difference between these groups of renters is their NIMBYism.

Results from the San Francisco exit poll show a similar combination of supporting supply citywide, but opposing it locally. When asked about a 10 percent increase in the San Francisco housing supply, both renters and homeowners expressed high levels of support, at 84 percent and 73 percent approval, respectively. But, somewhat surprisingly, when asked if they would support a ban on market-rate development in their neighborhood, renters showed far more NIMBYism than homeowners, with 62 percent of renters supporting the NIMBY ban compared to 40 percent of homeowners.

NIMBYism and How We Permit Housing

Renters in high-rent cities generally both want new housing citywide but behave like homeowners when it comes to their own neighborhood. These scale-dependent preferences present a policy challenge for keeping cities affordable. Over the past 40 years, city governments have increasingly empowered neighborhoods to weigh-in on housing proposals through formal planning institutions. In doing so, these decisions have amplified NIMBYism and the ability to reject new housing, without maintaining a counterweight for the broader interest for new supply citywide. In other words, while most residents may support new housing for the city as a whole, both homeowners and renters are willing and increasingly able to block that supply in their own neighborhood, effectively constraining the housing supply citywide. This is housing’s collective action problem.

In separate research, I am empirically testing the effect of these strengthened neighborhood institutions on the rate of housing permitting since 1980. Likewise, I am conducting further experimental research on what types of citywide housing proposals are able to win the greatest support among both homeowners and renters. Hopefully, by measuring the tradeoffs between the ‘city’ and ‘neighborhood’ in the politics of housing, we can better address the deepening affordability crisis facing many American cities.

New Report: Number of Older Adults in the US Expected to Surge, Highlighting Need for Accessible Housing and Policy Improvements

Download the Report

By 2035, more than one in five people in the US will be aged 65 and older and one in three households will be headed by someone in that age group, according to our new report, Projections and Implications for Housing a Growing Population: Older Adults 2015-2035, released today. This growth will increase the demand for affordable, accessible housing that is well connected to services beyond what current supply can meet.

As the baby boom generation ages, the US population aged 65 and over is expected to grow from 48 million to 79 million, and the number of households headed by someone over 65 will increase by 66 percent, to nearly 50 million. This growth will increase the demand for housing units with universal design elements such as zero-step entrances, single-floor living, and wide halls and doorways.  However, only 3.5 percent of homes offer all three of these features.

“The housing implications of this surge in the older adult population are many,” says Chris Herbert, managing director of the Joint Center. “and call for innovative approaches to respond to growing need for housing that is affordable, accessible and linked to supportive services that will grow exponentially over the next two decades.”

In the coming years, many older adults will have the financial means to pay for appropriate housing and supportive services that allow them to live longer in their own homes. However, many others will face financial hardships, particularly because their incomes will decline in retirement. Low-income renters are particularly vulnerable, notes the report, which projects that nearly 6.4 million low-income renters will be paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing by 2035. The report adds that 11 million homeowners will be also be in this position by that time. In total, the report estimates, 8.6 million people will be paying more than half their income for housing by 2035. The report also projects that 7.6 million older adults will have incomes that would qualify them for federal rental subsidies by 2035, an increase of 90 percent from 2013. “Today, however, we only serve one-third of those who qualify for assistance,” says Jennifer Molinsky, a senior research associate at the Joint Center and lead author of the report. “Just continuing at this rate—which would be a stretch—would leave 4.9 million people to find affordable housing in the private market.”

The report notes that in many surveys, older adults express a strong desire to live at home for as long as possible. Achieving that goal will require public and private action to support modifications to existing homes, take steps to address the affordability challenges facing both owners and renters, and adapting the health care system to enhance service delivery in the home. There is also a need to expand the range of housing options available to better meet the needs of an aging population and improve options for older adults to remain in their community when their current home is no longer suitable. 

“The implications of our aging US population on the housing industry are unambiguous,” says Lisa Marsh Ryerson, President of AARP Foundation, which provided funding for the report. “It will be imperative, in the coming years, that the housing industry, policymakers, and individuals take action to address the need for housing that will enable millions of older adults in this country to live with security, dignity, and independence.”

Read the full report

Join the conversation on Twitter: #harvardhousingreport

Metro Data on Rental Cost Burdens Show Uneven Improvement

by Alexander Hermann
Research Assistant

The national trend in cost burdens is reflected across most metropolitan areas of the US. Looking at the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) by population that have not undergone geographic boundary changes between 2005 and 2015, shows that in most metros, cost burden rates declined modestly for renters in 2015, but were still high relative to their levels in 2005. (A household is defined as cost-burdened when it spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing.)

Looking at cost burden rates among the top metros as a group, we find the number of metro areas with exceedingly high cost burden rates declined in 2015. Indeed, the number of metros where cost burdens affect at least half of all renters declined from 44 metros in 2014 to 33 in 2015, which is a significant improvement from 2010 levels, when cost burdens affected half of all renters in 65 metros. In total, between 2010 and 2015, fully 83 metros saw declines in the share of cost burdened renters.

Even with these improvements, however, the share of cost-burdened renters is still above 2005 levels in most metros. More than half of rental households were cost-burdened in 33 metros in 2015, an increase of 11 metros from 2005 (Figure 1). Moreover, renter cost burden rates in 66 metros were higher in 2015 than they were in 2005.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 1-Year American Community Survey estimates via Factfinder.

This trend is also evident for the more extreme measure of severe cost burdens (those paying more than 50 percent of income for housing). From 2014 to 2015, the number of metros with severe renter cost burden rates of 25 percent or more declined from 63 to 49 of the top 100 metros, respectively (Figure 2). This is a big improvement from 2010, when 79 metros had such high rates of severely cost-burdened renters, but still worse than in 2005, when it was just 37 metros.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 1-Year American Community Survey estimates via Factfinder.

Indeed, despite significant near-term improvement, severe cost burdens have yet to return to 2005 levels in most metros. In the 100 largest metros for which data extends back to 2005, 60 had larger shares of severely cost-burdened renters 2015 than in 2005.

Lastly, initial analysis finds that the 2015 data also show the profile of metros with the highest burden rates appears to have shifted somewhat. In 2015, metros with the highest shares of severely cost-burdened renters are generally the large metros with tight housing markets along both coasts, including New York, Miami, and Honolulu. In 2005, the profile of metros with this high share of severe cost burdens was different; though some coastal metros were included (like Miami and Stockton, CA), midwest and declining industrial metros were more prevalent among the severely cost-burdened metros (including Cleveland, Detroit, Rochester, and Memphis).

We’ll post additional analysis on this dataset in the coming weeks and months.

See the full metro Excel table for a complete set of metro-level cost burden data for 2015.

New Data Shows US Renter Cost Burdens Easing, But Still Elevated

by Dan McCue
Senior Research
Associate

The number of renters paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing decreased in 2015 by 240,000 households, reversing an eight-year trend of annual increases in the number of “cost-burdened” renters, according to new data released last week by the US Census Bureau. Unfortunately, however, the decrease was very modest in comparison to previous years. Indeed, the decrease in rent-burdened households recorded in 2015 was less than half the increase recorded in 2014. Moreover, the data show that there still are 21.4 million “cost-burdened” renters in 2015, 1.15 million more than in 2010 and fully 4.0 million more than in 2005 (Figure 1).

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 2015 1-Year American Community Survey estimates via FactFinder

The data also show some improvement in the number and share of “severely burdened” renters (those paying 50 percent or more of their income on rent). However, this growth was not enough to return to the pre-recession levels of 2008 and earlier. Overall, the number of renters paying 50 percent or more on rents decreased from 11.50 million to 11.28 million in 2014–2015, which was the lowest number since 2010. The share of renters with severe burdens dropped from 26.6 percent of all renters in 2014 to 25.8 percent in 2015. This is the lowest rate recorded since 2008, when 25.0 percent of renters paid 50 percent or more of incomes on housing.

In addition, the decline in the overall number of cost-burdened renter households in 2015 masked some worsening of cost burden rates within many income groups (Figure 2). Among people earning $20,000-to-$34,999 annually (which in many areas is still a low and/or moderate income), the share of those who were cost-burdened rose from 70.8 percent in 2014 to 71.3 percent in 2015. While a much smaller share of renters making more than $35,000 a year are cost-burdened, there were modest (less than one-percentage point) increases in the share of cost-burdened households, for these renters as well. In comparison, while more than 80 percent of the renters who make less than $20,000 a year are cost-burdened, that figure fell by less than one percent between 2014 and 2015.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 1-Year ACS data.

Taken together, these shifts suggest that the overall decline in cost-burden rates for renters is due to growth in the number of renters with higher incomes and a decline in the number of low-income renters. While this could be viewed as a positive trend for renter households as a group, the fact that renter burden rates continue to grow within and among higher income groups suggests affordability problems are growing across the income spectrum and even for higher income groups.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a closer look at the improvement trends across various metropolitan areas.

As Baby Boomers Age, Older Single Women Will Face the Greatest Housing Challenges

Shannon Rieger
Research Assistant

While high-quality, age-friendly, affordable housing will be a critical need for all of America’s growing number of aging households, for two reasons, the needs of older single women require particular attention for policymakers, providers, and others.

First, because women generally outlive their male spouses or partners, they will continue to be a major share of all older households. Women living alone already comprise 44 percent of all households (and three-quarters of all single-person households) where the householder is age 80 or over (Figure 1). Such women—particularly women who rent rather than own their homes—are among those older people who are most at risk of housing, financial, and health insecurity as they age.

Source: JCHS tabulations of 2014 American Community Survey data.

These challenges are one aspect of a larger demographic transformation that will occur over the next several decades as the aging of the baby boomer generation and increases in longevity swell the elderly American population. The US Census Bureau projects that the population aged 65 and over will reach 79 million by 2035, an increase of more than 30 million in just two decades (Figure 2). Further, longer life expectancy could nearly double the number of individuals aged 85 and over to 12 million by 2035.

Source: US Census Bureau 2015 Population Estimates and 2014 National Population Projections.

This so-called “Silver Tsunami” has already begun to reshape housing needs across the nation, generating demand for accessible, affordable housing that can help older households age safely and comfortably in place. As people age, finding the resources to make age-friendly home modifications, to pay for assistance with daily activities and self-care, or even keep up with housing payments often becomes increasingly difficult. The risk of falling into financial and housing insecurity grows when households cross into their retirement years (age 65), as incomes begin to drop dramatically while out-of-pocket health care expenditures rise (Figure 3). While some households may be able to adequately supplement shrinking incomes with retirement savings, home equity, and other forms of wealth, a recent report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that many households on the verge of retirement today have insufficient savings to independently finance their retirement years.

Source: Median household income derived from JCHS analysis of 2014 American Community Survey Data. Out-of-pocket personal health care spending data derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ National Health Expenditure Data, 2012 Age and Gender Tables.

Some aging households are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of financial insecurity and loss of independence. Older individuals who live by themselves, for example, often have neither the option to seek help with daily activities or unexpected emergencies from another person in the home, nor the financial cushion of a second income from a spouse or housemate. Women are disproportionately impacted. Older women, who are more likely to live alone in later life, continue to have lower lifetime earnings than their male peers, and are also more likely than men to need expensive long-term care. As a result, single women are projected to experience the largest retirement savings shortfalls over the next several decades.

Single older women who rent rather than own their homes are most at risk of falling into housing and financial insecurity. Older renters lack housing equity and typically also have far lower overall net worth than older owners, leaving many unable to sufficiently bolster limited retirement incomes with financial reserves. Analysis of the most recent Survey of Consumer Finances data shows median net worth for renters age 65 and over to be just $6,150—a mere 2.4 percent of median net worth for owners of the same age. For single older women renters, median net worth is even lower—just $3,910—and the risk of financial insecurity is especially high, intensified by comparatively lower incomes and even higher housing cost burdens than older renters overall (Figure 4). In 2014, annual median income for single women renters age 65+ was just $15,600. Meanwhile, fully 63 percent had a housing cost burden, with 38 percent paying at least 50 percent of their income toward housing. This combination of high housing cost burdens, low incomes, and little net wealth mean that older single women renters have few resources left to pay for assistance with self-care and other needs. But with median annual costs for non-residential long-term care ranging from $17,680 for adult day health care to $45,760 for full-time homemaker services, formal care is far out of reach for many single older women. With the aging of the baby boomer generation poised to increase the number of single older women living alone to unprecedented proportions over the next several decades, finding ways to mitigate housing and financial instability among this most vulnerable group is fast becoming a critical need.

Source: JCHS tabulations of 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data. Dollars are nominal.

Notes: "Moderate" burden is defined as housing costs of 30-50 percent of income. "Severe" burden is defined as housing costs of more than 50 percent of income. Due to survey design differences between SCF and ACS, "single women renters" refers to single-person female-headed households for data describing median household income and housing cost burdens, and to women whose marital status is "single" for data describing median net worth.

As previous Joint Center work has highlighted, our aging population will re-shape housing demand across the nation over the next several decades, greatly increasing the need for affordable, accessible, age-friendly housing. Ensuring that older single women, especially renters, have access to high-quality housing and home care will require particular attention, given their low incomes, low wealth, high likelihood of need for care, and the absence of a spouse, partner, or other household member able to provide daily assistance in the home. As the older population grows in coming years, it will be critical for policymakers and providers to take special care to ensure that our nation’s most vulnerable older households—particularly older single women—have access to tools that can help them age safely and successfully in their own homes and communities. Such tools may include affordable rental options and in-home care and homemaking services, as well as loan and grant assistance opportunities for age-friendly home modifications. Finding ways to expand access to these and other solutions will be critical to protecting the health, happiness, and well-being of our aging population today and in years to come.

How Do US Renters Fare Compared to Those Around the World?

by Michael Carliner
Senior Research Fellow

The Joint Center’s biennial America's Rental Housing reports examine the rental housing market in the US and have documented the increasing cost burdens faced by renters in this country. To provide further context for US rental housing, Ellen Marya and I looked at rental housing in a number of other advanced countries in a new working paper. Although numerous countries, as well as the European Union, issue reports with rental housing data, they use different measures of income, housing cost, affordability, unit size, number of rooms, and quality, making comparisons difficult. To develop comparable measures, we obtained and analyzed household survey data from Canada and ten European countries, as well as several US household surveys.

Notes: Data for 2013, except Canada 2011

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey; Statistics Canada, National Household Survey; Eurostat, European Union Survey of Income and Living Conditions

Figure 1 shows the twelve countries we included. The share of all households who were paying rent in 2013 ranged from 15 percent in Spain to 59 percent in Switzerland. The 33 percent share in the US was in the middle of the range and similar to several other countries. Some non-homeowning households were living rent-free, generally because of their employment or relationship to the property owners. Such rent-free occupants represent a small share of households in the US and most other countries, but account for more substantial shares of households in Italy, Spain, and Austria.

Comparing rental markets in the twelve countries revealed that the US was exceptional in a number of (often unfavorable) ways. The median ratio of housing cost to household income (Figure 2) was greater in the US than in any of the other countries studied, except for Spain, where there are relatively few renters. Moreover, the share of renters with severe cost burdens — paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing — was greater than in any of the other countries (Figure 3.)

Notes: Data for 2013, except Canada 2011

Other exceptional characteristics of renter households in the US included an average household size of 2.39, which is greater than in any of the other countries, except Spain. The share of US renter householders aged 65 or over (12.1 percent) was less than in any of the other countries, again with the exception of Spain. Also, the share of renters living in single-family detached houses was much higher in the US compared to the other countries.

In many other respects, rental housing in the US was not exceptional. While the median living area and number of rooms in US rentals is greater than in most of the other countries, several countries had comparably-sized rental units, especially after adjusting for the number of occupants. (This is in contrast to owner-occupied housing, where units in the US tend to be substantially larger than those in other countries.)

In all of the countries studied, foreign-born householders were more likely than native-born householders to be renters. In the US, 14 percent of all householders, and 20 percent of renters were foreign-born. The foreign-born share of all householders ranged from 7 percent in Germany to 38 percent in Switzerland. The foreign-born share of renter householders was more than 45 percent in Spain and Switzerland.

In each country, lower income households were more likely to be renters than those with relatively high incomes. In the US, about 33 percent of renter households were in the lowest quintile of the income distribution. In six of the other countries, the share of renters in the lowest income quintile were greater than in the US, so the US did not exhibit unusual concentration of rentership at the low end. Because of greater overall income inequality in the US, however, households in the bottom quintile had lower incomes, relative to the national median. Indeed, the median income of households in the bottom income quintile in the US (the 10th percentile) was 24.5 percent of the overall median household income, while among the other countries that ratio ranged from 27.9 percent to 39.1 percent.

Much of the focus of our analysis was on affordability and on the reasons why it is a greater problem in the US than elsewhere. The degree of income inequality is one factor. Another important influence on renters' cost was the availability of housing allowances, known in the US as vouchers. Although US renters with vouchers are provided with fairly generous subsidies, only a small share of renters actually receive vouchers. In France and the UK, about half of all renters benefit from housing allowances. In the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany, as well, large shares of renters receive housing allowances. Our analysis shows that the effects of housing allowances on affordability are substantial in those countries.

Although affordability in the US is typically measured by comparing housing cost to gross (before-tax) income, in Europe it is common to look at housing cost relative to disposable (after-tax) income. On that basis, the median ratios of housing cost to income for renters in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, and Spain, were higher than in the US, where taxes are lower. But the share of renters with severe cost burdens (greater than 50 percent of disposable income) was still greater in the US than in every country except Spain.

While the objective of the paper was largely to provide comparable statistics regarding the characteristics of renters and the rental housing stock in a number of developed countries, it underscores the severity of rental housing affordability problems in the US. It doesn't provide a clear answer to the question of how to improve affordability in the US, but it does suggest where to look.

 Read the working paper.

Are Renters and Homeowners in Rural Areas Cost-Burdened?

by Sonali Mathur
Research Assistant

As our latest report and interactive map illustrate, housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges faced by owner and renter households in most metro areas across the US. However, maps that use metro areas to display the local-level story miss the fact that cost burdens are also a major concern in non-metro/rural areas and are severely high for millions of low-income rural households. To address this gap in visibility, we created a set of interactive maps (Figure 1) using 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. In doing so, we found that housing cost burden rates in some rural counties are significant. We also learned that rural counties of the Northeast and west, that are adjacent to high-cost metros, have even higher cost burden rates than those in parts of the Midwest.

 (Click to launch interactive map; may take a moment to load.)

Housing cost burdens are particularly stark for rural renters. Indeed, fully 41 percent of all rural renters are cost-burdened (meaning they spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing), including 21 percent who are severely cost-burdened (spending 50 percent or more of their income on housing). Among owners, 22 percent are cost-burdened including nearly 9 percent who are severely cost-burdened. Overall, nearly 5 million rural households pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income toward housing and more than 2.1 million rural households spend more than half of their income on housing.

And cost burdens have been growing in rural areas (Figure 2). Since 2000, housing costs in rural areas have increased over 5 percent and one in every four rural households is now cost-burdened. Comparing burden rates from 2014 to those from 2000 in the maps above shows the increasing cost burdens in many rural areas over the last decade, including areas in and around the traditional Black Belt counties of the Southeast and areas in the west and Northeast that are contiguous to areas that had high cost burdens in 2000.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010-2014 and census 2000 for all non-metropolitan census tracts. 

Rural affordability issues tend to receive less attention due to a perception that housing costs are lower in rural areas, which is true as compared to metro areas. According to the 2013 American Housing Survey (AHS) the median monthly rent in metro areas is $800, while the median monthly rent in non-metro areas is $530. Monthly owner costs are also fully 43 percent lower in non-metro areas than in metro areas. However, low incomes and poverty are prevalent in rural areas. According to estimates from the American Community Survey, fully 15 percent of all households in non-metro area census tracts earn less than $15,000 annually and nearly 36 percent earn less than $30,000. Poverty is a widespread problem in rural areas, with 18 percent of population living in poverty compared to 15 percent in metro areas.

In addition to poverty and affordability, rural areas face several other major housing challenges. The share of housing stock that would be considered inadequate, as measured by the number of units lacking complete plumbing or a complete kitchen, is higher in non-metro areas. The share of units lacking complete plumbing is 4 percent in non-metro areas, compared to 2 percent nationally.

Among units in non-metro areas that lack complete plumbing facilities, 10.3 percent also have more than one occupant per room (compared to 8.2 percent in metro areas). This suggests that in non-metro areas there is likely to be overcrowding in the same units that lack adequacy. It is probable that the households facing affordability problems are dealing with it alongside other issues.

While it is true that cost burdens are high and a growing problem in most metro areas across the country, it is important to remember that non-metro areas also face increasing housing affordability issues, in addition to other housing-related challenges and should not be forgotten in policy discussions of a comprehensive approach to the escalating housing affordability problem.

Addressing the Housing Insecurity of Low-Income Renters

Irene Lew
Research Analyst

As our recently released 2016 State of the Nation’s Housing report highlights, rental housing affordability remains a pervasive—and growing—problem for millions of renter households in the US. The number of renter households devoting more than half of their income to housing costs (those considered severely burdened) climbed to a record high of 11.4 million in 2014. Among renter households earning under $15,000 a year, severe cost burdens are widespread, with 72 percent falling into this category. Severe cost burdens can adversely impact the housing security of very low-income households, leaving them little money left over to pay for necessities or to cover unexpected expenses. Indeed, compared to those with similar incomes who live in housing they can afford, very low-income renters paying more than half of their income on housing in 2013 were nearly two times more likely to fall behind on their rent, were at higher risk of having their utilities being shut off due to nonpayment, and were more likely to believe that they would be evicted within the next two months—all elements of housing insecurity (Figure 1).

Notes: Very low-income refers to households with incomes no higher than 50% of area medians. Severely cost burdened refers to households that pay more than 50% of income for housing. Households with zero or negative income are assumed to be severely burdened. Rent payment(s) were missed within the previous three months. Felt under threat of eviction refers to households who reported that they were likely to be evicted within the next two months. 
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, 2013 American Housing Survey. 

Furthermore, very low-income renter households with children are also more likely than those without children to be housing insecure and believe that they are at risk for eviction (Figure 2). Eviction is a leading cause of homelessness for families with children living in major cities like Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Baltimore, according to the most recent US Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Survey. As I point out in a previous blog post, homelessness among people in families with children persists in the highest-cost cities even as homelessness continues to decline steadily among veterans and those with chronic patterns of homelessness.

Notes: Very low-income refers to households with incomes no higher than 50% of area medians. Severely cost burdened refers to households that pay more than 50% of income for housing. Households with zero or negative income are assumed to be severely burdened. Rent payment(s) were missed within the previous three months. Felt under threat of eviction refers to households who reported that they were likely to be evicted within the next two months. Households with children refer to any households headed by an adult aged 18 and over with at least one child (related or unrelated). 
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, 2013 American Housing Survey.

Permanent federal housing subsidies that account for changes in tenant incomes, such as housing choice vouchers,  have proven to be the best option for improving housing stability, especially among homeless families exiting shelter. However, spending on federal housing assistance remains scarce, with direct housing subsidies representing just 4 percent of total discretionary funding approved by Congress in FY2015, a share that has barely budged over the past two decades.

Given the scarcity of federal funding, how can we address financial instability among low-income renters and reduce housing insecurity among this group? Enterprise recently proposed a promising master lease model program with built-in tenant savings accounts that could, without federal subsidies, improve the stability of low-income renters. Under this program, rents would remain affordable because a nonprofit or mission-driven organization would obtain long-term access to units in existing buildings through a multi-year master lease arrangement with fixed prices similar to the ones used for commercial leases. Unique to this model is a savings component in which a small amount of money from a tenant’s monthly lease payment would be allocated toward a custodial account in the tenant’s name. Tenants would not only have stable housing costs but would also be able to accumulate a savings cushion to pay for unanticipated expenses such as emergency room visits, and bounce back from income disruptions such as involuntary job loss or a significant reduction in income. In fact, a recent Urban Institute report analyzing data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation panel found that low-income families with savings of at least $2,000 to $4,999 are more financially resilient than middle-income families without any savings. Among low-income families with savings of $2,000–$4,999, just 20 percent experienced hardship after an income disruption, compared to about 30 percent among middle-income families without any savings.

However, financial issues are not the only contributor to housing insecurity among low-income households—some households may also struggle with additional challenges such as domestic violence, former incarceration, and mental health and substance abuse issues. As a result, improving housing insecurity may also require expanding access to supportive services that help address these underlying issues.

The MacArthur Foundation’s annual How Housing Matters Survey released last month confirms that a majority of Americans have a grim outlook on housing affordability—81 percent of respondents stated that they believe housing affordability is a problem in America today. Nearly seven in ten adults responded that it is more challenging to secure stable, affordable housing today than it was for previous generations. Furthermore, a recent Gallup poll found that 63 percent of renters with annual household income of less than $30,000 were worried about being able to pay their rent or other housing costs. Existing proposals to increase the number of affordable rentals built or preserved through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, and to reform federal rental assistance programs in order to serve more low-income households, can help alleviate the rental affordability crisis. However, it is equally important to offer programs that can help low-income renters better weather income disruptions or unexpected financial emergencies and avoid missed rent payments that can lead to eviction.

Housing Inadequacy Remains a Problem for the Lowest-Income Renters

Irene Lew
Research Analyst

In the early 1970s, in response to growing concerns about the housing conditions of poor families, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed a measure of housing adequacy for its American Housing Survey (AHS) that continues to be used by the agency today. This adequacy measure was originally designed to evaluate the extent to which the national housing stock met the standard of “a decent home and a suitable living environment” established by the Housing Act of 1949. While the condition of the housing stock has improved over the past several decades, the rental stock is still three times more likely than the owner-occupied stock to be considered inadequate. And problems persist among the most affordable rentals.

While fairly complex, the AHS adequacy measure factors in various housing problems related to plumbing, heating, electrical wiring, and maintenance. Using this AHS measure, the majority of the nation’s rental housing stock is in physically adequate condition. As of 2013, just 3 percent of occupied rental units were categorized as severely inadequate and 6 percent were moderately inadequate. In fact, the adequacy of the rental stock has improved over the past decade, with the share of rentals categorized as physically inadequate declining from about 11 percent in 2003 to 9 percent in 2013. 

Notes: Inadequate units lack complete bathrooms, running water, electricity, or have other deficiencies. 

Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys.

Stricter building codes have certainly helped to encourage higher quality, particularly the construction of units with complete plumbing and heating systems. As a result, severe physical deficiencies have been rare among the rental stock, especially among newer rentals. Just 1 percent of rentals built 2003 and later was classified as severely inadequate, compared to 4 percent of those built prior to 1960.

It is noteworthy, however, that the AHS adequacy measure does not account for certain health-related quality issues such as the presence of mold or structural issues such as holes in the roof or foundation, so housing quality problems may in fact occur at higher rates than the survey reports. And although physical deficiencies have become less common among the nation’s rental housing stock, housing problems disproportionately appear in units occupied by the lowest-income renters. In 2013, 11 percent of units occupied by extremely low-income renters (those with incomes less than or equal to 30 percent of area medians) were physically inadequate, compared to just 7 percent of those with incomes above 80 percent of area medians.

Notes: Extremely low / very low /  low income is defined as up to 30% / 30–50% / 50–80% of area median income. Inadequate units lack complete bathrooms, running water, electricity, or have other deficiencies.

Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, 2013 American Housing Survey.

The lowest-income households also accounted for the largest share of renters reporting overcrowded conditions and physical housing problems such as toilet breakdowns, exposed electrical wiring, heating equipment breakdowns lasting six hours or more and the presence of rats in the unit. 

Notes: Extremely low / very low /  low income is defined as up to 30% / 30–50% / 50–80% of area median income Overcrowded conditions refer to units where there are more than two people per bedroom. Holes in the floor are those that are about four inches across.  

Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, 2013 American Housing Survey.

Matthew Desmond’s most recent book, Evicted, vividly captures these statistics, drawing attention to the grim housing conditions of families in low-rent units in inner-city Milwaukee who must live with the constant presence of roaches and other vermin, clogged sinks and bathtubs, holes in their windows, and broken front doors.

Rentals occupied by extremely low-income households in central cities have the highest physical inadequacy rates, especially those located in small multifamily buildings with 2-4 units. Indeed, 16 percent of these units were categorized as inadequate, compared to 12 percent of those in buildings with 50 or more units. As I pointed out in a previous post, small multifamilies are a critical source of low-cost housing because they tend to charge lower rents than those in much larger structures, but much of this stock is rather old and at higher risk of loss from the affordable stock due to deterioration.

As this recent NPR piece suggests, the narrow margins for mom-and-pop landlords operating in low-income neighborhoods do not provide sufficient incentive for landlords to make improvements or repairs in a timely manner. Indeed, according to the American Housing Survey, 13 percent of extremely low-income renters reported in 2013 that the owner of their unit usually did not start major repairs or maintenance quickly enough, compared to less than half that share (6 percent) among higher-income renters with incomes above 80 percent of area medians.

The prevalence of housing deficiencies among units occupied by the lowest-income renters highlights the importance of bolstering building code enforcement efforts at the state and local levels. However, municipalities are often faced with tight budgets that lead to dwindling code enforcement teams. Indeed, according to one estimate in 2013, Cleveland and Detroit, among others, have cut their code enforcement workforce by about half since the middle of the last decade. Cities like Baltimore, Portland, and the San Francisco Bay Area are also facing shortages of building inspectors that make it difficult to deal with building code violations. While increased code enforcement can identify landlords who are failing to maintain their properties, this could also lead to unstable housing situations for current tenants. Renters may withhold rent or call local building inspectors as a tactic to push landlords to make necessary repairs, but this could lead to eviction threats or the initiation of a formal eviction process due to nonpayment of rent.

At the federal level, budgetary constraints have also impacted efforts to address the physical deficiencies among the aging public housing stock, which was largely built before 1970. Federal appropriations for the public housing capital fund fell by 34 percent over the past decade and HUD is faced with an estimated backlog of $26 billion in capital maintenance and repairs (as of 2010). HUD’s housing choice voucher and project-based rental assistance programs, which subsidize rentals for low-income households in the private market, require landlords to pass annual or biennial inspections for housing quality. However, the public housing stock is not subject to regular inspections and has largely been prohibited from using private capital to finance capital needs and repairs. As a result, compared to other types of assisted rentals, physical housing problems are more common among the public housing stock. In 2013, over half (53 percent) of public housing units had more than two heating equipment breakdowns lasting at least six hours and 13 percent of units had water leaks due to equipment failures within the previous 12 months.

Living in unsafe, physically inadequate housing can lead to adverse health and developmental outcomes for low-income families. Indeed, recent research confirms that children exposed to defects such as leaking roofs, broken windows, rodents, and nonfunctioning heaters or stoves were more likely to experience emotional and behavioral problems. Among five housing characteristics studied—quality, stability, affordability, ownership, and receipt of housing assistance—poor physical quality of housing was the most consistent and strongest predictor of emotional and behavioral problems in low-income children and adolescents. Poor housing conditions such as mold, chronic dampness, water leaks, and heating, plumbing, and electrical deficiencies, are also associated with health risks like respiratory illness and asthma. These findings underscore the urgent need for cities to prioritize code enforcement and work collaboratively with nonprofit tenants’ rights groups to deal with landlords who are not responsive to requests for necessary repairs.