How Do We Proactively Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing?

by David Luberoff
Deputy Director

Robust land bank and land trust partnerships, long-term lease-purchase programs, and low-interest renovation loans with affordability requirements are three tools that policymakers and mission-driven organizations can use to get ahead of real estate price appreciation, according to Proactive Preservation of Unsubsidized Affordable Housing in Emerging Markets: Lessons from Atlanta, Cleveland, and Philadelphia, a new working paper jointed published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies and NeighborWorks® America. Written by Matt Schreiber, a Master of Urban Planning student at the Harvard Graduate School of Design who was a 2017 Edward M. Gramlich Fellow in Community and Economic Development, the paper draws on work done by public and non-profit entities in all three cities.

North Philadelphia (Credit: Tony Fischer/Flickr)

In those places, Schreiber notes, median house prices range from $60,000 to $250,000, which suggests that they have an ample supply of affordable units. However, housing in those markets actually remains out of reach for so many residents, whose incomes are not growing as rapidly as house prices, which, according to Zillow's Home Value Index, rose by 8-11 percent in 2017. Such increases, and the fact that prices rose in more than 90 percent of the zip codes in those three cities, led Schreiber to ask what policymakers and the leaders of mission-driven organizations could do to get ahead of real estate price appreciation and, in doing so, proactively preserve their city's stock of affordable housing.

Schreiber used a four-part methodology to answer this question. First, he identified emerging markets; those areas that have not yet experienced the price appreciation effects of gentrification, but are likely to do so in the near future because they are close to each city's central business district, anchor institutions, or its other already-gentrified areas. Second, he reviewed the housing stock in these "likely-to-gentrify" areas, which made it clear that most of the affordable housing in these places are unsubsidized units located in one-to-four unit buildings. Third, he interviewed local stakeholders and national experts to learn their views on promising ways to find the balance between improving the quality of the housing stock while preserving its long-term affordability for low-income residents.

Those interview informed the fourth and final step: identifying and assessing three strategies that may address this challenge: building stronger partnerships between local land banks and local land trusts, creating lease-purchase programs that make homeownership more accessible for people of modest means, and offering low-interest loans that help owners renovate unsubsidized affordable units in return for long-term commitments to keep those units affordable for many years to come. Taken together, he notes, these strategies can help maximize the efficiency of the limited resources available to preserve and develop affordable housing. Moreover, the experiences in the three cities suggest "it is possible for mission-driven organizations and policymakers to get ahead of gentrification and proactively preserve vulnerable, unsubsidized affordable housing for low-income residents."

Are Home Prices Really Above Their Pre-Recession Peak?

by Alexander Hermann
Research Assistant

In 2016, national home prices not only rose for the fifth year in a row, they finally surpassed their pre-recession peak in nominal dollars, according to most national measures of home prices. However, as our new State of the Nation’s Housing report notes, when adjusted for inflation, home prices were still 9 to 16 percent below peak, depending on the measure used (Figure 1).



Figure 1. National Home Prices Now Exceed Their Previous Peak in Nominal Terms, But Not in Real Dollars

Note: Prices are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U for All Items less shelter.

Source: JCHS tabulations of S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index data.

Moreover, as our interactive maps show, changes in home price vary widely across the country and often exhibit strong regional patterns (Figure 2).

Figure 2. How Much Have Home Prices Changed?

Our interactive maps give users the ability to view price changes in 951 markets across the country over two time periods—since 2000 and since each area’s mid-2000 peak. Viewable markets include 371 Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 31 Metropolitan Divisions (derived from 11 additional metro areas), which together contain about 85 percent of that nation’s population, as well as 549 smaller Micropolitan Statistical Areas, which are home to another nine percent of the population.

The data indicate that nominal home prices were above their mid-2000s heights in 48 percent of all markets (454 total). These markets were largely concentrated in the middle of the country, the Pacific Northwest, and Texas.

However, in real dollars, prices reached their peaks in only 138 (15 percent) of all markets. Furthermore, while prices were above peak in only 10 percent of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Divisions, they topped their peak in 17 percent of the smaller micro areas, which experienced less home price volatility over the last decade.

In contrast, real prices were still 20 percent below peak in about one-third of all markets, most located in areas hardest hit by the housing crisis, including Florida and large parts of the Southwest, Northeast, and parts of the Midwest.

There were notable differences in long-term patterns in areas where real prices remained well below their pre-recession peak. In many markets on both coasts—such as Miami, Washington, DC, and Sacramento—prices have risen significantly over the last several years and, in real terms, are now well above their levels in 2000. However, because prices in these areas rose significantly during the boom years and fell so sharply during the recession, the recent gains have left prices far below what they were in the mid-2000s.

In contrast, in some Midwestern and Southern markets—such as Detroit, Chicago, and Montgomery, Alabama—prices rose only modestly in the 2000s, dropped significantly during the recession, and have grown only slightly in recent years. Consequently, real prices in these areas were not only well below their peak levels from the mid-2000s, but remained below 2000 levels in many cases.

The uneven growth in home prices over the past two decades has led to increasing differences in housing costs. Illustratively, in 2000 the inflation-adjusted median home value in the 10 most expensive metros (of the country’s 100 largest metros) was about $350,000, about three times higher than the median value of homes in the 10 least expensive metros. But between January 2000 and December 2016, real home values in the ten highest-cost housing markets rose by 64 percent to about $574,000, more than five times the value of homes in the least expensive areas, which grew by only 3 percent, to $113,000.

A broader look at home prices further highlights these stark disparities. Nationally, real home prices rose 32 percent between 2000 and 2016. But home prices in 30 percent of markets (290 total) actually declined in real terms, including 28 percent of metro and 33 percent of micro areas, most of them in the Midwest and South. In the Detroit metro area, home prices declined 26 percent, the largest decrease among large metros. Prices also fell significantly in the Cleveland (22 percent decline), Memphis (15 percent decline), and Indianapolis (13 percent decline) markets.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, between 2000 and 2016 real median home prices rose by more than 40 percent in 153 markets (16 percent), most of them on the East and West Coasts. In fact, prices doubled in twelve markets, including the Honolulu metro areas, which saw 104 percent growth. Home prices also rose considerably in the Los Angeles (97 percent), San Francisco (84 percent), Miami (73 percent), and Washington, DC (62 percent) markets. While micro areas were more likely to be past their previous peak, the lower price volatility also meant they experienced less price growth since 2000, with only 12 percent of micros exceeding 40 percent growth.

Growing Demand and Tight Supply are Lifting Home Prices and Rents, Fueling Concerns about Housing Affordability

A decade after the onset of the Great Recession, the national housing market has, by many measures, returned to normal, according to the 2017 State of the Nation’s Housing report, being released today by live webcast from the National League of Cities. Housing demand, home prices, and construction volumes are all on the rise, and the number of distressed homeowners has fallen sharply. However, along with strengthening demand, extremely tight supplies of both for-sale and for-rent homes are pushing up housing costs and adding to ongoing concerns about affordability (map + data tables). At last count in 2015, the report notes, nearly 19 million US households paid more than half of their incomes for housing (map + data tables).

National home prices hit an important milestone in 2016, finally surpassing the pre-recession peak. Drawing on newly available metro-level data, the Harvard researchers found that nominal prices in real prices were up last year in 97 of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. At the same time, though, the longer-term gains varied widely across the country, with some markets experiencing home price appreciation of more than 50 percent since 2000, while others posted only modest gains or even declines. These differences have added to the already substantial gap between home prices in the nation’s most and least expensive housing markets (map).

“While the recovery in home prices reflects a welcome pickup in demand, it is also being driven by very tight supply,” says Chris Herbert, the Center’s managing director. Even after seven straight years of  construction growth, the US added less new housing over the last decade than in any other ten-year period going back to at least the 1970s. The rebound in single-family construction has been particularly weak. According to Herbert, “Any excess housing that may have been built during the boom years has been absorbed, and a stronger supply response is going to be needed to keep pace with demand—particularly for moderately priced homes.”

Meanwhile, the national homeownership rate appears to be leveling off. Last year’s growth in homeowners was the largest increase since 2006, and early indications are that homebuying activity continued to gain traction in 2017. “Although the homeownership rate did edge down again in 2016, the decline was the smallest in years. We may be finding the bottom,” says Daniel McCue, a senior research associate at the Center.

Affordability is, of course, key. The report finds that, on average, 45 percent of renters in the nation’s metro areas could afford the monthly payments on a median-priced home in their market area. But in several high-cost metros of the Pacific Coast, Florida, and the Northeast, that share is under 25 percent. Among other factors, the future of US homeownership depends on broadening the access to mortgage financing, which remains restricted primarily to those with pristine credit.

Despite a strong rebound in multifamily construction in recent years, the rental vacancy rate hit a 30-year low in 2016. As a result, rent increases continued to outpace inflation in most markets last year. Although rent growth did slow in a few large metros—notably San Francisco and New York—there is little evidence that additions to rental supply are outstripping demand. In contrast, with most new construction at the high end and ongoing losses at the low end (interactive chart), there is a growing mismatch between the rental stock and growing demand from low- and moderate-income households.

Income growth did, however, pick up last year, reducing the number of US households paying more than 30 percent of income for housing—the standard measure of affordability—for the fifth straight year. But coming on the heels of substantial increases during the housing boom and bust, the number of households with housing cost burdens remains much higher today than at the start of last decade. Moreover, almost all of the improvement has been on the owner side. “The problem is most acute for renters. More than 11 million renter households paid more than half their incomes for housing in 2015, leaving little room to pay for life’s other necessities,” says Herbert.

Looking at the decade ahead, the report notes that as the members of the millennial generation move into their late 20s and early 30s, the demand for both rental housing and entry-level homeownership is set to soar. The most racially and ethnically diverse generation in the nation’s history, these young households will propel demand for a broad range of housing in cities, suburbs, and beyond. The baby-boom generation will also continue to play a strong role in housing markets, driving up investment in both existing and new homes to meet their changing needs as they age. “Meeting this growing and diverse demand will require concerted efforts by the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to expand the range of housing options available,” says McCue.

---

Live Webcast Today @ Noon ET

Tune into today's live webcast from the National League of Cities in Washington, DC, featuring:

Kriston Capps, Staff Writer, CityLab (panel moderator)
Chris Herbert, Managing Director, Joint Center for Housing Studies
Robert C. Kettler, Chairman & CEO, Kettler
Terri Ludwig, President & CEO, Enterprise Community Partners
Mayor Catherine E. Pugh, City of Baltimore, Maryland

Tweet questions & join the conversation on Twitter with #harvardhousingreport

Boston Mayor Gives Annual Dunlop Lecture

by David Luberoff
Senior Associate Director

In a more two-decade career that began in the construction trades and now brings him into a host of debates about federal policies, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh says he’s “learned a lot about housing: how it gets built, the role it plays in working people’s lives, and the role it plays in community development.”

Walsh, who gave the Joint Center’s 17th Annual John T. Dunlop Lecture on March 20th before more than 300 people at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, hailed the fact that, in positions that included serving as dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and as U.S. Secretary of Labor, John Dunlop “spent his career bringing together academics, government officials, workers, and labor leaders to better understand our shared challenges.” Such collaboration, “is something we could use more of today,” noted Walsh, who added, “I’ve found that kind of dialogue and collaboration to be invaluable throughout my career,” particularly when it comes to housing.

Walsh, who emerged from a crowded field to win Boston’s mayoral race in 2013, said that upon taking office, “one of the first things I confronted was what more and more people were calling a housing crisis. Rents and home prices were rising beyond middle-class, working-class, and low-income people’s budgets.”  Addressing those challenges, he said, not only required setting and achieving ambitious goals, such as building more than 50,000 additional housing units by 2030, but also doing so in ways that go beyond “simply matching housing units to the population, or meeting market-driven demand.”

Rather, he said, “the challenge is to embrace our success as a city while retaining the core values that got us here. Those values center on inclusiveness, on opportunity, on social and economic diversity. We are a community that welcomes all and leaves no one behind. These aren’t just ideals. They are pragmatic needs.” The mayor, who also spoke about city initiatives to provide more housing, reduce homelessness, and address evictions, added that those efforts further highlight “the role of housing not just in community development but also in human development.”

Turning to current debates about the federal budget and other federal policies, Walsh said the Trump administration’s recent budget proposals and other federal initiatives are “an effort to end the system of federal partnerships that date to the New Deal and Great Society commitments of the 1930s [and] the 1960s.”  Left unchecked, he said, such policies would exacerbate the already significant problem of economic inequality in Boston.  Therefore, he added, he and other mayors are actively trying “to educate people on the impacts of inequality, and advocate for solutions” such as “health care; paid family leave and affordable daycare; strong labor laws and fair tax laws; financial regulation; [and] infrastructure investments.”

While these are daunting challenges, the mayor said, “I’m still counseling confidence” because the work the city has done and continues to do puts Boston “in a good position to respond to this moment. Even if the funding arrangements we’ve built seem threatened, the relationships we’ve built are strong. They will produce new solutions and new ideas. They will bring new partners to the table.”  Those partners, he concluded, hopefully will include the many graduate and undergraduate students who attended the lecture. “We are going to need you in the years ahead,” said the mayor.

Watch Mayor Marty Walsh deliver the 2017 Dunlop Lecture.

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

New Census Data on Incomes Suggests Growing Demand for Housing

Dan McCue
Senior Research Associate

New data released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday suggests that the demand for housing – particularly among young adults – may be growing.

As many news outlets have reported, the CPS 2016 Annual Social and Economic Supplement with household income data for 2015  showed that real median household income rose 5.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, to $56,516. It was the first annual increase in median household income since 2007. Median household incomes were up for each region of the country, and for non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic households, and across all age groups (Figure 1).

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements

The data release also showed significant increase in real median earnings at the person level in 2015, which grew 5.0 percent for all adults over age 15. Incomes were up most sharply among younger adult age groups under the age of 40 (Figure 2).

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements

For several reasons, this growth is likely to have significant implications for housing markets. First, at the individual level, higher incomes increase demand for housing. For young adults, housing independence is closely linked to income. Those with higher incomes are more likely to be able to rent their own apartment. Analyses in the Joint Center’s 2016 State of the Nation’s Housing report describe this, adding that nearly half of the decline in household formation among young adults aged 25-34 across the Great Recession was due to declines in income suffered by people in this age group. Income growth can therefore work in the reverse, helping enable young adults to move out of their parents’ basement and into their own home.

At the household level, income growth also increases housing demand, particularly for homeownership. As higher income households are more likely to own homes, increases in incomes among households will work against the continued decline in the US homeownership rate. In terms of affordability, the strong association between household income and housing cost burdens also means income growth may help alleviate some people who are stressed with housing costs, but on the affordability front there is still a long way to go.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Current Population Survey Annual Supplement is a relatively small survey with a high degree of annual volatility year to year, so the exact movements of household income and personal earnings measured year to year should be viewed with the wide margin of error they require. That said, the income growth reported in the latest survey is still a good sign that improvement in jobs and the economy is now translating into increased earnings that is likely to lead to growth in households and greater demand for housing.

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.

What Can Measures of Residual Income Tell Us About Affordability?

Shannon Rieger

Research Assistant

JCHS analysis of American Community Survey data in our recent State of the Nation's Housing indicates that the share of households with housing cost burdens—those paying 30 percent or more of income toward housing—has increased since the turn of the 21st century (Figure 1). Rising cost burdens have hit low-income households especially hard: among households with annual incomes under $15,000, 83.4 percent had housing cost burdens in 2014, with 70 percent facing severe cost burdens—paying at least 50 percent of income toward housing.

This changing distribution of housing cost burdens clearly indicates that housing affordability has become more of a problem for a larger share of households in recent years. However, cost burden measures alone provide limited insight into the extent to which housing costs constrain a household’s resources, capacity to save, and overall financial wellbeing. To answer these questions, we need an additional way to measure housing affordability. This blog post therefore constructs measures of residual income after housing costs using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) to examine the extent to which rising housing cost burdens have eroded households’ ability to afford other basic costs of living during the first years of the 21st century.

Source: JCHS tabulations of 2001 and 2014 1-Year American Community Survey data.

This discussion examines average residual income for consumer units that participated in the Consumer Expenditure Survey between years 2000 and 2013. For simplicity, we use the term “household” to refer to the CES-defined consumer units, which are occasionally smaller than households in cases where financially independent families or roommates live in the same housing unit. Dollars are adjusted for inflation using CPI-U All Items Less Shelter, a deflator neutral to housing cost increases. To account for the introduction of income imputation in 2004, we analyze reported (non-imputed) rather than imputed income data even in years where imputed data is available, and limit our sample to complete income reporters.

Analysis of CES data confirms that rising housing cost burdens are the result of countervailing trends in housing expenditures and incomes (Figure 2). Households in every income quartile spent more on housing in 2013 than in 2000, with households in the bottom income quartile experiencing the steepest increases. For the bottom income quartile, average housing expenditures climbed almost 20 percent over the period. The second quartile saw more moderate but still sizeable increases of just over 10 percent, and the two upper income quartiles each spent an average of 6 percent more on housing in 2013 than in 2000.

While housing expenditures were on the rise between 2000 and 2013 for all income quartiles, real income growth trended in opposite directions during the same period for households at the top and bottom of the income ladder. Analysis of CES data indicates that real average income fell by almost 4 percent for the lowest income quartile, while the highest income quartile saw average income grow by fully 10 percent—more than offsetting concurrent increases in housing expenditures.

Notes: Adjusted to 2013 Dollars using CPI-U All Items Less Shelter. Top and bottom 2.5% of incomes are excluded. Incomes are non-imputed annual incomes for complete reporter consumer units only.
Source: JCHS tabulations of Consumer Expenditure Survey data.

These divergent trends in housing expenditures and incomes have produced a widening residual income inequality gap. For all but the highest income quartile, the average amount of residual income remaining after paying for housing has declined, with households in the lowest income quartile seeing the sharpest declines (Figure 3). The lowest-income households already had very little monthly residual income in 2000 ($575 per month), yet by 2013, residual income had fallen even farther, to just $423 per month—a decline of over 26 percent in real terms. As these figures show, between 2000 and 2013 all but the highest income households became less able to afford basic costs of living after paying for housing.

Figure 3: Average Monthly Residual Income after Housing, 2013 Dollars

	2000	2013	Percent Change
Lowest Quartile	$575	$423	-26.4
Second Quartile	$1,879	$1,809	-3.7
Third Quartile	$3,980	$3,958	-0.6
Fourth Quartile	$8,017	$8,886	+10.8

Notes: Adjusted to 2013 Dollars using CPI-U All Items Less Shelter. Top and bottom 2.5% of incomes are excluded. Incomes are non-imputed annual incomes for complete reporter consumer units only.
Source: JCHS tabulations of Consumer Expenditure Survey data

The hardships associated with housing cost increases may be particularly severe for low-income seniors, single parents, individuals with disabilities, and other households with fixed incomes or necessary expenditures on healthcare, childcare, or other basic needs. For example, analysis of CES data indicates that in 2013, while a household in the first income quartile headed by an individual under the age of 65 paid an average of $166 per month in healthcare costs, a senior-headed household in the first quartile paid more than one and a half times that, averaging $275 per month. After accounting for housing costs, a senior household in the first income quartile had just $519 left to finance all other costs of living—meaning that in 2013, the average low-income senior household paid more than half their residual income toward healthcare. As these figures illustrate, rising housing costs do not carry similar consequences for all households. Instead, households with the least cushion in their budgets are the most vulnerable to increases in the cost of housing.

The use of residual income measures highlights the implications of rising housing costs for household budgets, shedding light on the extent to which rising housing costs have exacerbated the consequences of growing income inequality. As the figures above show, income growth stagnated or declined for all but the highest income households between 2000 and 2013. At the same time, households with the lowest incomes experienced the largest percentage change in their housing costs, compounding the effects of the income trends. The upshot is that lower-income households have become less able to afford not only housing, but also all other non-housing costs of living since the turn of the 21st century.