Supplementary Findings: Finding 8

The 1990 Census showed that worst case needs were more likely then in States and metropolitan areas in the West and Northeast regions.²⁵ Similarly, shortages in housing affordable to extremely-low-income renters were also more severe in these locations, with worst case needs highly correlated to such shortages. Although sharp differences by location within regions have doubtless persisted since 1990, the regional trends documented by the AHS show that regional differences in the probability of worst case needs among very-low-income renters narrowed during the 1990s, as the share of very-low-income renters with worst case needs fell in the West and rose in the Midwest and South.

• Two-fifths (40 percent) of very-low-income renters in the West, 1.5 million households, had worst case problems in 1997. Worst case problems were also common in the Northeast, where they occurred among 39 percent of very-low-income renters, or 1.3 million households.

In 1997, very-low-income renters were most likely to have worst case problems in the West and the Northeast, where such needs for rental assistance occurred among two-fifths of eligible renters (see Exhibit 24). Worst case needs were least common and least likely in the Midwest, where they were experienced by 960,000 households (33 percent). Because it is the largest region, the South had the greatest number of worst case households, with 1.6 million representing 36 percent of those eligible.

Between 1991 and 1997, the number of households with worst case problems grew most, by over 200,000, in the Northeast, as the probability among very-low-income renters of having worst case needs increased there from 34 to 39 percent. Worst case needs also mounted in the South, from 1.5 to 1.6 million, and became more likely there as well. In the West, the number of households with unmet needs also rose, from 1.3 to 1.5 million. However, this increase occurred because of rapid growth in the number of very-low-income renters (from 3.1 to 3.8 million), and the likelihood of worst case problems among very-low-income renters actually fell, from 43 to 40 percent. In the Midwest, the number of households with worst case problems was essentially the same in 1997 as in 1991 because of two offsetting trends: although the share of very-low-income renters with worst case problems rose from 29 to 33 percent, the total number of very-low-income renters fell by 400,000.

• In the West, supplies of rental units affordable to renters with extremely low incomes fell to a new low: there were only 56 affordable units for every 100 extremely-low-income renter households needing them. Shortages were almost as severe in the Northeast, where there were 68 affordable units for every 100 extremely-low-income renter households needing them.

Regional differences in worst case needs mirror differences in shortages of housing affordable to extremely-low-income renters: the greater the shortage the higher the probability of worst case needs. In 1997, extremely-low-rent units were in shortest supply in the West, with only 56 affordable units for every 100 extremely-low-income renter households needing them, and the Northeast, with 68 units per 100 renters. In the Midwest, the region with the lowest probability of worst case needs among very-low-income renters, units and renters almost matched in number, with 97 units per 100 renters.

In terms of units actually available to extremely-low-income renters because they are either vacant for rent or occupied by extremely-low-income renters, the differentials among regions are similar, but the deterioration between 1991 and 1997 has been worse (see Exhibit 25). Declines in affordable stock relative to extremely-low-income renters were worst in the South, where the ratio of units per 100 renters dropped from 54 to 38, and the Northeast, which experienced a drop from 49 to 37 units per 100 renters. Affordable units were most often available in the Midwest, but even there the situation worsened during the 1990s and there were only 43 units per 100 renters by 1997. Affordable units were least often available in the West: by 1997 there were only 27 affordable units for every 100 extremely-low-income renters needing them.

Among units affordable to incomes at 50 percent of median, regional data show that the slight but encouraging national rise observed between 1995 and 1997 occurred in all four regions. The rise was greatest in the Midwest, the one region with a large and growing surplus of such units during the 1990s. The improvement was least in the West, the only region with a substantial shortage of units affordable to very-low-income renters and one in which that shortage worsened during the 1990s.

The increased availability of units affordable to incomes at 50 percent of area median stands out most clearly when the number of these affordable units that are vacant is compared to the number of very-low-income renters with worst case needs who need other housing. As the 1996 report discussed,²⁶ this ratio indicates whether there are enough vacant units with rents near or below the FMR for households who could not use Section 8 vouchers in their current housing because it is inadequate or too small for their family. Instead, they would need to move to other housing if they were to receive and use tenant-based assistance. As Exhibit 26 details, this indicator of housing availability is highest in the Midwest and South and lowest in the West. Between 1991 and 1997, it increased in all four regions, with substantial gains in both the Midwest and the South.

• Very-low-income renters were least likely to receive some form of housing assistance in the South (where 21 percent reported some form of assistance) and in the West (with 23 percent assisted). In the Northeast and Midwest regions, over 30 percent of very-low-income renters reported assistance.

Lacking units affordable to them, the extremely-low-income renters who are most likely to have worst case problems need rental assistance to afford what units exist. In a somewhat surprising change from previous experience, the South in 1997 showed the lowest rates of assistance: only 21 percent of very-low-income renters. Because of the major change in assistance questions and the markedly higher rates of assistance earlier reported in the South, this shift must be regarded with some skepticism. The West, which over the past two decades has consistently had the lowest percent assisted of the four regions, is now second lowest, with 23 percent assisted. Rates of assistance remained highest in the Northeast, where 34 percent of very-low-income renters reported assistance, and in the Midwest (31 percent).