The Continued Growth of Multigenerational Living

by Shannon Rieger
Research Assistant

A substantial number and share of older Americans are living in “multigenerational” households, according to our analysis of recently released 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year population estimates. In total, 20.3 percent of all non-institutionalized adults aged 65 and over – about 9.4 million people – live in multigenerational households that include at least two generations of adults (individuals over the age of 25). The ACS data also show large differences in the prevalence and composition of multigenerational homes by age, race, and ethnicity.

The new data not only reflect the fact that there are a growing number of older Americans, but also that the share of older Americans living in multigenerational homes has been growing steadily since the 1980s. These trends are likely to continue as baby boomers age. Importantly, multigenerational living might allow some older Americans to enjoy a higher quality of life while aging in place, as an overwhelming majority of people want to do. At the same time, for some families of limited means, multigenerational living may be a financial necessity rather than a desirable living situation. Regardless of why they are choosing multigenerational living arrangements, providing families with education and support to suitably modify their homes could help these arrangements be as safe, effective, and beneficial as possible.

Who Lives in Multigenerational Homes?

About two-thirds of the 9.4 million older adults living in multigenerational homes live in households that have exactly two adult generations (usually parents and adult children aged 25 or older). The rest are in three-or-more-generation households that typically include grandparents, adult children, and grandchildren.

Trends in multigenerational living also change with age (Figure 1). The share of people living in multigenerational settings is highest for individuals in their late 20s (mostly due to adult children still living at home), then drops for those in their 30s as young adults move out and form their own households. The share rises again for people in their early 40s until peaking at about 23 percent for people in their late 50s. This “sandwich” age group includes people who are living with their adult children, those who are living with their aging parents, who often need daily support and care, and those living with both their children and aging parents.

Notes: Multigenerational households are those with least two adult generations aged 25 or older or that include grandchildren, adult children, and grandparents. Householders and parents are considered “adults” regardless of age. Other household members include extended family members (e.g. aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews) and unrelated individuals. Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates. 

Because adult children move out and elderly parents pass away, the share of people living in multigenerational households declines for people who are in their 60s and early 70s. However, the share rises steadily for older adults in their mid-70s, who often are starting to face more daunting health and financial challenges. Among the oldest age groups (aged 85 and over), 27 percent – about 1.5 million people – lived in multigenerational households in 2015.

In addition to differences in age, people of color and foreign-born individuals are far more likely to live in multigenerational settings than non-Hispanic whites and people born in the United States (Figure 2). More than 25 percent of native-born blacks, Hispanics, and Asians/others aged 65 and over live in multigenerational homes, as do more than 45 percent of foreign-born in all three of these groups. In contrast, 15 percent of native-born non-Hispanic whites of the same age, and just over 20 percent of foreign-born non-Hispanic whites, live in multigenerational households. 

Notes: Whites, blacks, and Asians/others are non-Hispanic. Hispanics may be of any race. Multigenerational households are those with least two adult generations aged 25 or older or that include grandchildren, adult children, and grandparents. Householders and parents are considered “adults” regardless of age.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates. 

A sizeable subset of these multigenerational homes include at least three generations: usually grandparents, adult children, and grandchildren living together under the same roof. Roughly ten percent of native-born blacks, Hispanics, and Asians/others aged 65 or over live in such households, along with around 25 percent of foreign-born older adults in each group. Among non-Hispanic whites, just under 4 percent of older native-born adults and 7 percent of the foreign-born live with three or more generations.

Looking forward, projected growth and demographic shifts in the older population seem likely to increase the number of multigenerational households and the share of people living in those households. The U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent population projections estimate that by 2035, about 79 million Americans will be age 65 or older, an increase of more than 30 million people in just two decades. This growth is due to the fact that the baby boom generation is getting older and because with increases in longevity more people will live well into their 80s, 90s, and beyond.  In fact, the Census Bureau projects the number of “oldest old” adults aged 85 and over to double over the next two decades.

The racial and ethnic composition of the older population will also shift markedly over the next several decades. The non-Hispanic white share of the 65-and-over population is projected to drop nearly ten percentage points to 69 percent by 2035, while the black, Hispanic, and Asian shares will rise, respectively, by 20 percent, 67 percent, and 39 percent (Figure 3). Census Bureau projections estimate that the foreign-born share of the 65 and over population will also continue to increase, growing from 13 percent in 2015 to 19 percent in 2035. Though the direction of future residential preferences among the older population is uncertain, the sheer magnitude of growth in the older population and the fact that much of the growth will be among the very old, people of color, and the foreign born suggests there will be substantial growth in multigenerational households in the coming years. 

Notes: Whites, blacks, and Asians/others are non-Hispanic. Hispanics may be of any race.   

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, 2014 Population Projections. 

Impacts on Housing and Services

As this growth occurs, it will be important to consider how new and existing housing stock might be designed or modified to best meet the needs of multigenerational households. Universal design features including single-floor living, zero-step entrances, and hallways and doorways wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers can make homes more accessible for older adults with mobility limitations as well as for their young grandchildren. Flexible layouts that can change as family needs evolve, as well as the addition of semi-private spaces for each generation (such as in-law suites with separate entrances, multiple master bedrooms or kitchens, and accessory dwelling units), can also help make the housing stock better suited for multigenerational households.

While multigenerational living works well for many households, it is important to note that it is not necessarily a desirable option for every family. Rather, multigenerational living may be a financial necessity rather than an attractive housing option not only for families with lower incomes but also for moderate-income families living in higher-cost areas. Further, sharing a home with multiple generations can be challenging, particularly if the house is small, has inadequate amenities, or there are unclear or unrealistic expectations about responsibilities for both finances and personal care. Finally, informal help from family members may not be an adequate replacement for professional care, particularly for aging adults with serious health conditions. Providing families with guidance about how to live successfully in multigenerational settings, and, perhaps, with financial assistance to make home upgrades and modifications, will therefore be critical if multigenerational living is going to be an appealing, comfortable option for families of all means. While designing and carrying out such policies and programs will be challenging, such efforts have the potential to provide a more appealing and cost-effective housing option for older Americans and their families.

Defining the Generations Redux

by George Masnick
Senior Research Fellow

How should we define the baby boom, Generation X, and the millennial generation?

In a Joint Center blog published in 2012, I argued that using 20-year age spans for each generation would make it easier to compare them. Since many researchers still use generational definitions that span different and inconsistent age ranges, particularly for millennials, it is perhaps timely to reframe and restate my case.

In keeping with my recommendations, the Joint Center has long identified the cohort born between 1945 and 1964 as baby boomers.Those born between 1965 and 1984 are Generation X, and the cohort born between 1985 and 2004 are millennials (Figure 1). 

However, other analysts use several different earlier dates to usher in the millennial generation, apparently because they want to ensure that the oldest member of this cohort were considered adults at the dawn of the new millennium (i.e. they had turned 18 or 20 in the year 2000). This definition meant that by 2015, the oldest millennials were in their mid-30s, old enough to prompt compelling stories about how many 30-somethings were still living with parents, living in cities, forsaking marriage and childbearing, and delaying homeownership. In contrast, under my recommended cut-off dates, the oldest millennials turned age 20 in 2005 and didn’t start entering their 30s until 2015.

Besides making it easier to compare generations, there are several reasons why the millennial generation should start with those born in 1985 and turning 20 in 2005. As I noted in my 2012 blog, 1985 was the year that U.S. births once again exceeded 3.7 million, the approximate number that demarcated the beginning and the end of the baby boom, as well as the beginning and the end of the “baby bust” that defines Generation X.

Three other big changes occurred shortly after 2005 that significantly altered the way young adults live. First, social media participation skyrocketed. Facebook became available to everyone age 13 and older with a valid e-mail address in September 2006. Twitter became public in 2006. The first iPhone was released in June of 2007. As a result of these and other changes, the share of adults using social media rose from five percent in 2005 to 69 percent in 2016, according to a recent Pew Research publication.

Second, student loan debt outstanding more than tripled between 2005 and 2016, rising from $400 billion to over $1.3 trillion. This high level of debt is thought to affect everything from leaving the parental home, to getting married and starting a family, and purchasing a first home. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the economic changes that led to the Great Recession hit hardest among young adults who were in their 20s shortly after 2005. The unemployment rate of adults older than 25 without a high school degree rose from below six percent in late 2006 to 15 percent in mid-2009. (Those with a high school degree or more followed this trend within a year.) Unemployment rates of those with a high school degree or more have slowly improved, but still remain above pre-recession levels. Unemployment rates for those with less than a high school degree have returned to their pre-recession elevated levels, but people in this group generally are making less money and receiving fewer benefits than they did before the recession. Meanwhile, housing costs have returned to, or now exceed, their pre-recession levels.

Using equally broad 20-year age spans produces several important findings about the different generations. To start with, the millennial generation has been larger than the baby boom generation, now or at any other previous time since the boomers were age 10-29 in 1975 (Figure 2). Millennials now number almost 87 million compared to less than 79 million for baby boomers at the same age. This is in contrast to findings of a 2016 Pew Research study that compared generations using millennials with a smaller age range and found roughly equal numbers between these two generations in 2015 (75 million).

Source: Census Bureau Population Estimates 1975-2015

Using consistent age spans also shows the changing ways that immigration has affected the number of people in each generation. In 1995, when Generation X was age 10-29, it was smaller than the baby boom generation was in 1955, when it was the same age. However, because of immigration, by 2005, when Generation X was age 20-39, it already exceeded the number of baby boomers at the same age. 

Immigrants also make up a small but growing share of millennials. In 2015, 9.6 percent of millennials were foreign born compared to 21.4 percent of Generation X, and 15.3 percent of baby boomers (Figure 3). However, according to the latest Census Bureau population projections, the share of millennials who are foreign born is expected to rise to 20.9 percent in 2035 when they are age 30-49, which will boost the number of millennials to 97.3 million (Figure 4).  

Source: Census Bureau Population Projections for 2015

* Data do not allow 85-89 year olds from 85+ age group

Source: Census Bureau Population Projections for 2035

Finally, the constant-age-span approach allows us to identify significant generational differences in race and ethnicity. Overall, in 2015, 45.4 percent of millennials, 41 percent of Generation X, and 28.6 percent of baby boomers were minorities (i.e. non-Hispanic Blacks, non-Hispanic Asian/Others, or Hispanics of any race). Moreover, because of continued immigration, the share of millennials who are minorities is projected to rise to almost 50 percent in 2035 and the share of Generation X is projected to rise slightly to 42.4 percent. In contrast, the share of baby boomers who are minorities is projected to hold constant at 28.6 percent. 

These differences reflect changes for both foreign-born and native-born members of each generation. In 2015, fully 85 percent of both foreign-born millennials and foreign-born members of Generation X were minorities.  In contrast, only 78.5 percent of foreign-born baby boomers were minorities. Moreover, while 41.2 percent of native-born millennials were minorities, only 29 percent of native-born members of Generation X and 19.6 percent of native-born baby boomers were minorities (Figure 5).

* Data do not allow 85-89 year olds from 85+ age group

Source: Census Bureau Population Projections

Looking forward to 2035, the size of the baby boom cohort will drop to about 60 million people because a growing number of baby boomers will pass away. Many millennials and members of Generation X will want to live in the housing units formerly occupied by those baby boomers. Their ability to do so will not only be shaped by the fundamental economic and social changes discussed above but also by whether the large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities in these two generations will have full access to those housing markets, and with it, the ability to achieve the American dream. 

Have Recent Demographic Trends Contributed to the Rise and Fall of the Homeownership Rate?

by Jonathan Spader
Senior Research Associate

What has caused the ongoing, decade-long decline in homeownership in the United States? And which factors are most likely to influence homeownership rates in the future?

Discussions of the declining homeownership rate—which fell from 69 percent at its mid-2000s peak to below 64 percent in 2015—frequently point to demographic trends, such as delayed marriage and childbirth, an increasingly diverse U.S. population, and changing attitudes and preferences among both Millennials and retiring baby boomers, as the primary source of the decline. However, non-demographic factors like high foreclosure rates, tightening credit standards, and falling household incomes probably also contributed to the recent declines. To better understand the relative importance of the demographic changes, I used data from the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS/ASEC) for 1985-2015 to examine the extent to which changes in the distribution of U.S. households by age, race/ethnicity, and family type contributed to both the rise and fall in the homeownership rate over the past two decades.

I found that while there have been significant demographic changes in the last 30 years, these changes alone do not explain the last decade’s drop in homeownership rates. Nor do demographic trends explain why the homeownership rate rose from about 64 percent in 1990 to 69 percent in 2005. Rather, changes in the demographic profile of U.S. households suggest that the homeownership rate should have steadily declined by about 1-2 percentage points between 1985 and 2015. This, in turn, suggests that the rise and fall in the homeownership rate between 1985 and 2015 reflects changes in the broader economy, home price appreciation, mortgage credit conditions, and possibly household preferences for owning versus renting that alter the likelihood that demographically-similar households are homeowners.

Several demographic trends are reshaping the profile of U.S. households. First, the aging of the baby boomer generation has increased the number of households in older age cohorts. For example, the number of households headed by an individual age 55-59 hovered near 6.5 million from 1985 to 1995 before increasing to 9.8 million in 2005 and 12.3 million in 2015. (Figure 1) This shift has put upward pressure on the homeownership rate by increasing the number of households in older age cohorts, which have higher homeownership rates than younger age cohorts. (Figure 2) In coming years, the baby boom generation will continue to reshape the profile of U.S. households as they reach the oldest age groups.

Second, the racial and ethnic makeup of U.S. households is changing. The share of white non-Hispanic households declined from 81.3 percent in 1985 to 67.6 percent in 2015. Over the same period, the share of black households increased from 10.8 percent to 12.5 percent, the share of Hispanic households more than doubled from 5.6 percent in 1985 to 13.0 percent in 2015, and the share of Asian and all other households more than tripled from 2.2 percent in 1985 to 6.8 percent in 2015. (Figure 3) The implications of these trends for the homeownership rate depend on whether historical differences in homeownership rates across groups will persist in coming years. Historical CPS data suggest that the Hispanic-White and Asian/Other-White gaps in homeownership rates narrowed only slightly between 1985 and 2015, whereas the Black-White gap increased from 24.6 percentage points in 1985 to 28.8 percentage points in 2015. (Figure 4)

Third, larger numbers of young households are delaying marriage and childbirth until later in life, or forgoing them entirely. The share of households headed by a married couple decreased steadily from 58.9 percent in 1985 to 49.9 percent in 2015. The reduction is due entirely to decreases in the share of married couples with children, as the share of married couples without children remained approximately constant during this period. The decline is offset by increases in the share of single person households, unmarried households with children, and other unmarried households. (Figure 5) While homeownership rates for all groups have declined in recent years, the rates are consistently highest for married couples with children. (Figure 6)

To estimate the cumulative effect of these trends, I conducted shift-share analyses using the CPS/ASEC data. These analyses hold constant homeownership rates at their levels in various years to reveal the extent to which changes in the homeownership rate are driven by changes in the number of households in each age, race/ethnicity, and family type group. For example, using the 1985 sample, I calculated the 1985 homeownership rates associated with each combination of the 13 age groups, 4 racial/ethnic groups, and 5 family type groups shown in the figures above—creating 260 categories in total. For each of the years from 1986-2015, we can then calculate what the U.S. homeownership rate would have been if the homeownership rates for each group remained at the 1985 level. (Readers seeking a more detailed description of the methodology for this analysis can consult a forthcoming JCHS working paper.)

Figure 7 displays the results of such calculations when rates are held constant at their levels in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The projected homeownership rates suggest that changes in the profile of U.S. households by age, race/ethnicity, and family type do not explain the boom and bust trends in homeownership rates since the early 1990s. Rather, these factors predicted a modest decline in the homeownership rate of about 1-2 percentage points between 1995 and 2015. However, the overall predicted homeownership level varies sharply across the various years, which is the result of unmeasured changes across time in the broader economy, home price appreciation, mortgage credit conditions, and possibly household preferences for owning versus renting that alter the likelihood that demographically-similar households were homeowners in different years.

For a second analysis, I added additional variables to the shift-share analysis using a regression model to calculate the homeownership rates associated with each variable. (Again, more detail about the methodology can be found in the forthcoming working paper.) Specifically, the second analysis adds information on household income, employment status of the head and spouse, educational achievement, veteran status, and more detailed measures of marital status and the presence of children in the household. The projected homeownership rates from this analysis show that while these factors produce more volatile projections, they explain very little of the rise and fall in the actual homeownership rate between 1985 and 2015. The one possible exception is the period from 1996 to 2000, when rising incomes and employment help to explain a portion of the rise in the homeownership rate at that time. However, these factors are not able to explain the continued rise of the homeownership rate following the 2001 recession or the subsequent bust in the latter part of the decade. (Figure 8)

Taken together, these findings suggest that demographic factors explain very little of the rise and fall in the homeownership rate from 1985-2015. Rather, changes in the profile of U.S. households during this period have placed competing pressures on the homeownership rate and largely offset one another. Looking forward, the aging of the baby boom generation and the coming of age of the Millennial generation are similarly unlikely to substantially alter the homeownership rate in the near future. Instead, the trajectory of the homeownership rate depends more heavily on how quickly the foreclosure backlog clears, how many people who lost their homes to foreclosure buy homes in the future, how long mortgage credit conditions remain tight, and whether young households’ slowed rates of homeownership entry persist in future years. Additionally, any major changes in the broader economy, housing finance system, or attitudes toward homeownership may also influence future homeownership rates to the extent that they alter households’ demand or access to homeownership.

From the Archives: When New York’s Legendary “Power Broker” Spoke at the Joint Center

by David Luberoff
Senor Associate Director

Fifty years ago today, Robert Moses, the legendary “power broker” who reshaped New York City in the mid 20th century, gave a lunchtime talk at the Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard. Thanks to Adam Tanaka, a 2015 Joint Center Meyer Doctoral Fellow who was doing research for his thesis on the construction of large-scale, middle-income housing in New York City, the Joint Center recently received a copy of his speech.

Given today’s debates about housing, transportation, and other issues related to urban development and urban policy more generally, it’s instructive to look back at Moses’ remarks, which were given at the predecessor of today’s Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Moses, whose language was florid and at times supercilious, asserted that most major municipal problems could be solved “by genuine courage as distinguished from braggadocio, empty millennial problems, buck passing to Washington and yielding to every obstructionist group, every Johnny-Come-Lately planning expert, every editorial pundit, and every racial, religious and sectional minority. Water supply, sewage and waste disposal, roads, parking, schools, hospitals and health, all are the same category of works requiring an honest, factual, fearless approach and attack by officials with at least a thirst for martyrdom and an instinct for the jugular.”

Robert Moses

The remarks and the harsh judgments are particularly striking because Moses – whose importance is sometimes compared to Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s impact on 19th century Paris – was a singularly important figure in New York specifically and American cities generally. Working from a series of appointed state and city positions (many of which he held at the same time), Moses oversaw the construction of 13 bridges (starting with the Triborough Bridge, now known as the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge), 416 miles of highways (including the Long Island and Cross-Bronx Expressways), 658 playgrounds and parks (including Jones Beach State Park), key cultural and non-profit institutions (including Lincoln Center and the United Nations), and 150,000 mainly high-rise housing units for the city’s low- and moderate-income residents (including Trump Village, a 3,800 unit complex in Coney Island built by Donald Trump’s father). These changes not only transformed New York, they also provided a template for redevelopment and highway projects throughout the country.

Image by Hassan Tahir (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 ], via Wikimedia Commons

However, such changes came at a huge human cost. In The Power Broker, a critical and seminal biography of Moses that won the Pulitzer Prize in 1974, Robert Caro estimated that taken together, Moses’ road, bridge, housing, and urban renewal projects displaced about 250,000 people, most of them poor and many of them blacks and Puerto Ricans. Moreover, Moses strongly supported policies that did not allow blacks to move into many of the new housing projects, such as Stuyvesant Town in Manhattan – a private moderate-income housing development built on land cleared by a city entity that Moses oversaw.

By the time that Moses spoke at the Joint Center, his power had begun to wane largely because of increasingly intense disputes about his aggressive approaches to urban development and growing feuds with key elected officials, particularly then New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. His opponents, who included Jane Jacobs, author of The Life and Death of American Cities, had stymied his efforts to radically transform lower Manhattan via the construction of an elevated expressway from the Hudson River to the East River and to use urban renewal powers to clear parts of Greenwich Village for high-rise middle-income housing developments. As a result, by the time he gave his Joint Center talk in 1966, Moses, who once simultaneously held 12 separate city and state positions, had only one official post, chairman of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, a self-financed public entity that he had chaired since he had led the effort to create it in the 1930s. When Moses spoke at the Joint Center, the authority owned and operated nine bridges and tunnels, including the Verrazano-Narrows, Throgs Neck, and Bronx-Whitestone bridges as well as the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels.

In his remarks, Moses – who was fond of the French aphorism (sometimes mistakenly attributed to Joseph Stalin) that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs” – made it clear that his recent defeats had not changed his views. He began by hailing the approach to urban problems taken by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who headed the Joint Center from 1966 to 1969 and who went on to several prominent posts, including serving as one of New York’s U.S. Senators from 1976 until 2000. “I like Mr. Moynihan’s approach to our municipal problems,” Moses said, “because it is honest and forthright at a time when solutions are mainly the province of demagogues screaming for perfection, smooth politicians with new catchwords and slogans appealing to every racial, religious, sectional and economic faction and minority, image makers, fanatics, self-appointed wowsers, reformers with direct links to Higher Regions, far-out critics with long claws and venomous serpent’s tongues, ponderous editors, computer analysts, and just plain nuts.”

Moses went on to endorse his support for what had become a common, but inaccurate reading of “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the controversial report Moynihan had prepared in 1965 while working in the Johnson Administration. Moses began by restating – and expanding – the report’s best-known assertion. “If I understand him,” Moses said, “Mr. Moynihan says, and quite rightly I believe, that family, church, and other ancient responsibilities and disciplines must be restored if we hope to meet the problem of negro, Puerto Rican, and other slums and ghettos.”

However, like many conservatives who embraced Moynihan’s assessment of the state of black families, Moses did not repeat Moynihan’s assertion that the problems were largely caused by “three centuries of unimaginable mistreatment” of blacks by whites. Nor did Moses support Moynihan’s proposals to address those problems via large-scale government programs focused on strengthening black families. Instead, Moses asserted that responsibilities to family, church and other institutions had to “come first, ahead of improved housing, schools, recreation, the Four Freedoms, integration and even human rights.” He added, “But our political and opinion-making leaders don’t go for such simple and sane reasoning because it represents restraint and, like charity, begins at home.”

Moses, who was forced out of the TBTA in 1968 when the agency became part of the newly formed Metropolitan Transportation Authority which used some of the TBTA’s revenues to subsidize the region’s subways and commuter rail lines, concluded with a somber assessment of the then-current urban policy landscape. “Almost no one in high office wants to be told that a motorized civilization is bound to glut the roads and that the best we can do will not meet the problem short of approaching much more drastic regulation which will require sacrifice,” he said. Then he returned to some familiar critiques of others’ ideas, asserting, “Careless experts say we shall meet the demands by preferring rails to rubber, substituting regionalism for states, master planning, super duper departments run by administrative giants of an elite corps of experts who are also seagreen incorruptibles, trained to be public tycoons, more business in government, the repeal of Parkinson’s Law, rebuilding everything without hurting or discommoding anybody, and combining immediate, uncompromising slum clearance with revolutionary social objectives.”

Moses, who died in 1981, concluded by noting, “Here endeth the lesson, if I have any to offer, and the beginning of the interrogation which will enable you to get even with me.” While we haven’t yet found a transcript of that discussion we’re sure that, like Moses’ remarks, they not only would be an informative historic artifact but also would highlight many of the urban issues that we are wrestling with today.

Read the speech transcript.

Are Baby Boomers Propping Up the Homeownership Rate?

by Rocio Sanchez-Moyano
Research Analyst

The US homeownership rate peaked in late 2004 and has been in a steady decline ever since, dropping 5.5 percentage points, according to the Housing Vacancy Survey. Annual homeownership rates for 2014 were back down to 1994 levels, and the quarterly homeownership rate fell another 0.3 percent in the first quarter of this year, bringing it down to 63.7 percent, the lowest level since 1993.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Surveys.

Homeownership rate declines have been most dramatic for young and middle-aged households. Homeownership rates for households aged 35-44 have dropped fully 9.5 percentage points since 2004, while those for households younger than 35 (the prime first-time homebuyer age group) have also declined by 7.3 percentage points. In all, recent declines have more than negated the gains in homeownership rates made by all 10-year age groups of households younger than 65 since the previous low in 1994. Meanwhile, homeownership rates for households age 65 and up, already higher than most other age groups, grew by 2.5 percentage points in the 1994-2014 period. 

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Surveys.

With such large declines in homeownership rates among younger age groups, the decline in the overall US homeownership rate could have been worse if not for the significant aging of households, which has moved larger shares of households into older age groups that have traditionally higher homeownership rates. Indeed, as baby boomers have aged, older cohorts swelled, while the smaller baby bust shrunk the number of middle-aged households. While the millennial generation is already larger than the baby boom was at similar ages, a sizeable share of millennials are too young to live alone (the youngest were born in 2004), and the household formation of older millennials has been delayed by high unemployment and low incomes. As a result, households aged 65 and older represented nearly 36 percent of household growth from 1994-2014. Their homeownership rates were already above 70 percent even in 1994 and have remained more stable during this time period. An additional 55 percent of household growth came from households aged 55-64. Though these households saw homeownership declines from 1994-2014, they typically have high homeownership rates (nearly 80 percent in 1994 and still 76 percent in 2014), so the growth in this group pulled up the average homeownership rate. In fact, if the age distribution of households today matched the younger-leaning distribution of 1994, the age-specific homeownership declines of the last decade would have resulted in nearly 5 million fewer owners and a national homeownership rate 3 percentage points lower than where it stood in 2014.

The aging of the population has been an important buffer against the homeownership declines of the last decade, but it cannot be a prop forever, as eventually baby boom households age into their 80s when homeownership rates begin to decline. And aging’s positive effects on the national homeownership rate will be more muted if homeownership rates among middle-aged households of the future are lower than those of the baby boomers at similar ages. Furthermore, it remains unclear how much the homeownership rates of younger households will recover. According to Fannie Mae’s National Housing SurveyTM, the desire to be a homeowner remains a common goal, particularly among young renters, 92 percent of whom report hoping to own one day. But renters of this age also express concern that their finances are holding them back: 42 percent believe they cannot afford costs related to purchasing a home, including the downpayment, and 47 percent think they have insufficient credit to obtain a mortgage. Those with student loan payments (which account for 42 percent of young renters) also fear they have too much existing debt to take on a mortgage. Recovering economic conditions should allow more millennials to form their own households, but it is difficult to say to what extent they will be able to enter the homeownership market.

Additionally, the growing minority share of households, particularly among millennials, will create some headwinds in the return to higher homeownership rates. Because minorities have historically lower homeownership rates, as they become a larger share of all households homeownership rates will decline unless their homeownership rates increase. For example, even if homeownership rates by racial/ethnic group had remained constant from 1994-2014, the increasing minority share would have resulted in a homeownership rate 2.5 percentage points lower than what actually occurred. Within age bands, increasing minority share resulted in steeper homeownership rate declines among younger households and muted homeownership gains for those  65 and older.

Note: White, black, and Asian/other households are non-Hispanic. Hispanic households may be of any race.

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys.

VIDEO: An Interactive Conversation about the Role of Designers in Promoting Racial Justice in our Communities

by Jennifer Molinsky
Senior Research Associate

Earlier this month, the Joint Center for Housing Studies, together with the Loeb Fellowship and African American Student Union at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), hosted InFORMing Justice, an interactive conversation about designers’ roles in promoting racial justice in our communities. The event evolved in the wake of national discussions about the deaths of black men in Ferguson, Staten Island, South Carolina, and elsewhere, as a way for GSD students and the broader community to discuss how design and designers can promote community empowerment and ultimately justice (and its requisite parts, including equal access to safe, healthy neighborhoods and economic opportunities). 

In the opening panel, moderated by Professor Michael Hays, architects Kimberly Dowdell, Theresa Hwang, Liz Ogbu, and artist Seitu Jones touched on the intensely personal nature of their professional work in disadvantaged, racially segregated communities. They urged architects, designers, and planners to reflect on their own biases and assumptions as they work to build what Jones called “the beloved community;” the importance of active, intentional listening in engaging with community residents; the critical role of the design process in bringing about change; and the value of working collaboratively across disciplines. 

Following the panel, participants broke into small groups to brainstorm ideas about how design professionals can address racial injustice in the university curriculum and in practice. 

If you missed the event, you can now watch the webcast, view our Storify of tweets & images from the evening, or read more about design for equity, including contributions from panelists Liz Ogbu and Theresa Hwang.

Not All Hard-Hit Neighborhoods Recover Equally

by Jackelyn Hwang
Meyer Fellow

Foreclosures disproportionately hit minority neighborhoods across the U.S. during the housing crisis. In Boston, over 80 percent of foreclosures took place in just five of its 15 planning districts—Dorchester, East Boston, Hyde Park, Mattapan, and Roxbury; nearly 75 percent of the residents in these five districts are non-white, while the remainder of Boston is 70 percent white. While we know foreclosures took place more frequently in these minority areas, we know less about the paths that foreclosed properties followed and whether these paths are similar across these hard-hit areas.

In a new working paper, I show that foreclosed properties within the hardest-hit areas of Boston have quite different trajectories, which leave some sections more disadvantaged than others in the housing market recovery. Integrating several data sources (foreclosure deeds, real estate sales transactions, property tax records, crime and 911 reports, constituent service requests, inspection violations, and building permits), I explore the following questions:

• Who buys foreclosures? 
• Do they maintain them? 
• Do these characteristics affect the quality of the local neighborhood?

As in many other states, if a property owner in Massachusetts defaults on his or her mortgage and is unable to stop foreclosure proceedings (by paying the debt or negotiating new mortgage terms), the property is sold at a public auction. About 15 percent of the residential foreclosures (1-3 family units and condominiums) in Boston were purchased by investors directly at auction, but most properties remained in the hands of the bank following the auction. Eventually, the bank resells the property, but this can take many months and even years. During this time, the property is often unoccupied, which can lead to declining conditions of the property and the area around it. A local ordinance has attempted to stymy this by requiring owners of foreclosing properties, including lending institutions, to register with the City. Once the property is purchased from the bank, the property may follow many paths: owner-occupied or rented, fixed up, or left to decline.

The findings show that within Boston’s hard-hit planning districts, not all foreclosed properties and their surrounding areas have experienced the same trajectory in the wake of the housing crisis and recovery. Investors were more likely than owner-occupants to purchase foreclosed properties in sections that had greater shares of blacks, even after accounting for socioeconomic and housing characteristics of the areas and characteristics of the foreclosed property. Indeed, only around one in five foreclosed properties were purchased by owner-occupants in areas that were majority black, but nearly one in three were purchased by owner-occupants in areas that were less than 50 percent black. Moreover, individual investors were more likely than both owner-occupants and larger investors to purchase foreclosed properties in sections with greater shares of foreign-born residents.

When I examine how well new owners maintain their properties, the types of buyers who tended to concentrate in areas with higher shares of blacks were also less likely to maintain their properties. Foreclosed properties purchased by investors registered as trusts—which include non-owner-occupant family, realty, and land trusts and carry more legal risk than corporations, but also maintain anonymity and do not pay state fees—were 2.5 times more likely than owner-occupants to have maintenance-related inspection violations and service requests placed against them and were half as likely to obtain permits to fix their properties. Other types of investors were also more likely than owner-occupants to have maintenance-related inspection violations.

Lastly, areas where a higher percentage of foreclosures are purchased by investors registered as trusts also have higher rates of property-related issues in the local area. The lower quality of property maintenance and greater rates of blight in particular sections of these hard-hit areas can detract investment in the areas that need it most. Nonetheless, the distribution of various types of foreclosure buyers are not associated with local levels of crime and social disorder, such as loitering, but areas with higher foreclosure rates had more crime and disorder.

Consistent with a long line of sociological research on residential segregation and residential preferences, minority areas, and certainly those with high foreclosure rates, crime, and disorder, are in the least demand by all residents. Larger investors appear to be more willing or financially able to take on these assets, but how they maintain their properties has important implications for the future stability of these neighborhoods. After all, visible blight serves as an important cue for potential investors and households.

What can be done? Recognizing that owner-occupants may not be the only possible solution for foreclosed properties, given the relatively large stock over the last several years, policies can work to: 

1. Develop financial incentives and provide resources to ensure that investors purchasing foreclosed properties maintain them; and, 
2. Create resources and opportunities for smaller, local investors or owner-occupants to purchase and maintain properties in areas struggling to recover.

Creative programs like the Landlord Entrepreneurship Affordability Program, which supports low- and moderate-income families in purchasing, rehabilitating, and serving as an owner-occupant landlord in small-scale rental properties, are what truly distressed areas need. 

Homeownership Rates Continue to Decline, but Minority Owners Still Better Off than Before the Housing Boom

by Rachel Bogardus Drew
Post-Doctoral Fellow

The Census Bureau recently released its 2014 Q4 Housing Vacancy Survey (HVS) data, giving us a complete look at the boom and bust in homeownership rates over the last 20 years. The HVS’ reported homeownership rate, though far from perfect, remains the most up-to-date and cited statistic on homeownership in the U.S., and thus an important barometer of the housing status of American households. One advantage of the HVS is its long time frame, going back to 1965 at the annual and regional level, which helps to put recent trends in homeownership into a historical context. Figure 1 shows that the national homeownership rate rose steadily through the late 1960s and 1970s, from 63 to 65.6 percent, before declining slightly in the early 1980s. After a decade of stagnation, the rate rose rapidly from 1994 to 2004, from 64 to a record high of 69 percent. Since then, however, the national homeownership rate has declined almost fully back to its 1994 level.

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

The roller-coaster ride of the national homeownership rate from the last 20 years, while dramatic in its own right, only tells a small part of the homeownership story. Another advantage of the HVS data is reporting on homeownership rates for subsets of households by race/ethnicity and age, which add important texture to this story. Homeownership rates by race and ethnicity, for example, have generally followed the same up-and-down trend as the national rate, although no identified racial or ethnic group has given back all their gains. Indeed, when measured by the difference in their homeownership rates relative to 1994, only blacks are close to their former level (Figure 2). Households in the ‘other’ category (mostly comprised of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and multi-race householders), which grew their share of homeowners by 12 percentage points during the boom, remain fully 7 percentage points up today.

Notes: Hispanic includes all races. All other races includes multiracial. 

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

The reason the national homeownership rate has declined all the way back to its 1994 level, even when no individual racial or ethnic group has done so, is because of the simultaneous shift in the race/Hispanic origin composition of households in the U.S., which has increased the share of all households that are headed by a minority. Due to the lower homeownership rates of minorities, relative to non-Hispanic Whites, this shift automatically lowers the homeownership rates of the nation, independent of any changes in minority-specific homeownership rate.

The second set of data from the HVS to shed more light on homeownership trends are the changes in rates by age of householder. Similar to the breakouts of homeownership rates by race and ethnicity, most of the age groups identified share the same rise and fall trend over the last 20 years, although householders ages 65 and older did not decline appreciably following the mid-2000s boom (Figure 3). The youngest households, those under age 35, gained the most in their homeownership rate during the boom, but have since declined to one-and-a-half percentage points below their pre-boom rate. Middle-age groups, meanwhile, have seen their homeownership rates fall nearly five percentage points below their mid-90s level, with 35 to 44 year olds experiencing a full ten percentage point swing in the last ten years. These dramatic declines are greater than the overall decline in homeownership because of the shifting age composition of households, which have skewed older over the last twenty years as the baby boomers progressed into higher ownership middle and early retirement ages, being replaced in the 25 to 44 age group by the smaller and more racially diverse Generation X cohorts with lower ownership rates. The low levels among younger cohorts, however, do suggest that the national homeownership rate is only back to its mid-90s level because of sustained homeownership by older households, and that among those in their prime working years the actual homeownership rate is indeed well below so-called ‘normal’ levels.

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

A quick glance at these data may raise some concerns about the future of homeownership, especially for younger households and minorities who will account for large shares of households going forward. Yet caution should be exercised in extrapolating these trends forward.  For one thing, the HVS data often shows unexplainable jumps in quarterly rates and counts of households, which are somewhat muted by these annual averages. Second, recently moderating house prices and a move to relax lending restrictions, along with the reduction in FHA mortgage insurance premiums, should give home buying a boost. Third, most people, and especially young adults, remain in favor of homeownership, despite the risks exposed during the recession and foreclosure crisis. For these reasons, few analysts expect homeownership rates to fall much further. If it were to happen, however, the story would change from one of returning to a pre-boom norm of about 64 percent, to entering a new era of low homeownership rates unlike anything we have seen in the last 50 years. 

How Does Geographic Diversity in Age Structures Impact Housing Market Dynamics?

by George Masnick
Senior Research Fellow

As the youngest of the baby boom generation has now turned 50, there is much talk about the overall aging of the U.S. population. But recently released Census Bureau population estimates for states and counties tell a more nuanced story about the diversity in age structures in the U.S.  The census release notes that the oldest county (Sumter County-FL) has a median age of 65.5, while the youngest (Madison-ID) has a median age of 23.1.  Quite a difference!  Other counties among the oldest include Charlotte-FL (57.5), Alcona-MI (56.9), Llano-TX (56.9), and Jefferson-WA (55.9).  The five youngest counties also include Radford City-VA (23.3), Chattahoochee-GA (23.9), and Harrisonburg City-VA (24.2), and Utah County-UT (24.2).  The U.S. median age is 37.6. 

We should perhaps not be surprised that the county with the oldest population is in Florida, or that Idaho and Utah, with their Mormon influences, should have the counties with the youngest populations. But what is going on in Michigan, Texas, and Washington counties to rank among the oldest, and in Georgia and Virginia to produce places with the youngest populations?

There are three main demographic factors that influence the age structure of a population: 

1. Domestic migration patterns of both young adults and the elderly; 
2. Settlement patterns of international immigrants; 
3. Levels of fertility of both the immigrant and native born populations.  

Differences in life expectancy could also influence age structures if those differences are large.  For states and counties in the U.S., however, mortality differences are not sufficient to affect differences in median age. 

Places with net domestic out-migration of young adults, and/or in-migration of elderly will be older (younger if these migration patterns are reversed).  Florida is a destination state for retirement migration, as are North Carolina, Arizona, and other warm weather and low-tax states in the south and west.  Maine, West Virginia and many rust belt and Great Plains states lose young adults on net, so places in these states will also have an older age structure.

Immigrants tend to be young and have higher fertility compared to the native-born, so places that are immigrant destinations will be younger.  While states on the coasts and along our southern border still attract the majority of immigrants, states in the interior have increasingly become immigrant destinations as immigrant networks have spread beyond gateway states. 

Finally, fertility levels are the primary determinant of a population’s age structure.  When fertility is above replacement (more children born than reproductive-age adults in a family) the population pyramid is broader at the base, and median age is lower. The pyramid becomes more mushroom-shaped when fertility is below replacement, and median age is higher. 

When the population unit is relatively small, as with most of the counties listed above, these demographic factors can reinforce one another and create extreme values.  For larger units of population, such as large counties, metropolitan areas and states, differences should be less extreme, but they can still be significant. 

The population estimates from which median ages were calculated contain detail by race/Hispanic origin and sex, allowing us to examine the percent minority as a surrogate for the influence of immigration and the boost to overall fertility levels that immigrants and native-born minorities provide.  We can also look at a measure of recent total fertility by calculating the ratio of children age 0-4 to women in the primary reproductive ages of 20-44.  We cannot get a direct estimate of net domestic migration by age group from the published population estimates, however.  

The table at the bottom of this post, constructed from the 2013 population estimates, ranks states on median age, percent minority, and fertility.  While Florida has the county with the highest median age, the state as a whole is only the 5^th oldest, surpassed by Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and West Virginia.  The lower the percentage minority in a state, the higher the median age (Figure 1). The oldest states are those where young immigrants and native-born minorities with higher fertility have not settled.  Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and New Hampshire rank the lowest on percent minority. In addition, the lower the total fertility rate, the higher the median age (Figure 2). This second relationship is the stronger of the two that are graphed, and the relationship holds fairly well across the entire range of fertility (discounting DC as an outlier).  The New England states collectively are also near the bottom of the ranking on total fertility.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates

Older states may be destination states for retirement migration, but can also have lost young adults from out-migration to states with bigger cities and more job opportunities.  For example, according to the 2012 American Community Survey, Maine gained 27,500 residents from other states during the previous year, but lost 38,500.  If most of the out-migration from Maine were young adults, the effect would be to increase the median age.

The youngest states, however, are more of a mixed bag.  Utah’s very high fertility level – the highest in the nation – is sufficient to secure its ranking as the state with the youngest median age. Utah is not completely lacking in diversity - its percent minority (20.3%) is just the 18^th lowest, but the total fertility rate in Utah is primarily driven by its non-Hispanic white population’s high rate of childbearing.  Alaska, the second youngest state, has a large minority population (mostly native Alaskans), as well as levels of fertility that are well above the U.S. average.  Its young ranking, however, is likely also determined by in-migration of young adults to work in energy and nature oriented jobs, and out-migration of the elderly to warmer climates.  The District of Columbia has achieved its ranking as the third youngest in all likelihood because of in-migration of young adults to work in Washington for a spell.  These adults are largely single, as suggested by DC’s extremely low fertility. But also contributing to DC’s young age structure is the fact that the percent minority is the highest on the mainland (64.2%).  Texas is the 4^th youngest state, both due to its high percent minority (56%) and high fertility.  Texas has received consistent growth from both immigrants and young domestic migrants in recent years.  The final state among the top five youngest is North Dakota, which has been the beneficiary of considerable in-migration of young adults to work in the booming energy sector in the western part of the state.  North Dakota’s fertility rate is also among the highest, attesting to the impact of a favorable economy on family formation.   

Geographic diversity in age structures has direct implications for housing market dynamics.  Places with younger age structures will require new construction to house young adults, both now and in the future.  If the young age structure is created by higher fertility, homes will need to be larger to accommodate larger families.  If the younger age is created by in-migration of singles, a different housing mix is required, at least in the short run. 

Places with older populations are expected to show a greater balance between supply and demand for existing housing.  An older age structure brought about by low fertility and out-migration of young adults will have less need for new construction.  This is especially true if the existing housing is located in places where young adults want to and can afford to live.  However, if future demand for existing housing by young adults or older in-migrants is not there, older adults may be less able to sell their homes, and we can expect higher rates of aging in place. In these places there would be a greater need for modification and upgrading of existing housing to help the elderly safely stay in their homes.  On the other hand, if the older age structure is primarily the result of in-migration of retirees, and if that in-migration is sustained, there will be more opportunities for new construction and for the elderly to sell their homes in order to adjust their housing needs.  

Source: 2013 Census Bureau population estimates for states and counties.

*Fertility Rate is the number of children age 0-4 per 1000 women age 20-44.