skip navigation

Friday, September 19, 2014

[ – ] Text Size [ + ]  |  Print Page

Affordability and Availability of Rental Housing in Pennsylvania

Chapter 3: Housing Conditions of Pennsylvania's Lower Income Renters In 2000

Tables

National and State Levels

County Level

Return to Chapter 3 of Affordability and Availability of Rental Housing in Pennsylvania.

Table 7: Income Distribution and Housing Problems in 2000
 
% Distribution of Renters by AMI Group
% With Any Problem (Housing Unit Problem or Cost Burden)
 
Total Renter Households
% ELI Households
% VLI Households
% LI Households
% ELI Households
% VLI Households
% LI Households
United States
35,638,908
23%
17%
21%
74%
71%
40%
Pennsylvania
1,370,36641
24%
18%
22%
71%
63%
28%
Delaware
82,623
21%
17%
23%
71%
69%
32%
Maryland
639,095
23%
17%
21%
73%
68%
32%
New Jersey
1,053,045
23%
16%
18%
74%
76%
45%
New York
3,316,539
26%
15%
17%
77%
76%
49%
Ohio
1,372,841
24%
18%
23%
71%
62%
23%
West Virginia
182,764
28%
19%
19%
65%
57%
24%

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables F5C and F5D, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 8: Cost Burden Incidence in 2000
 
% With Any Cost Burden
(Rent Greater Than 30% of Income)
% With Severe Cost Burden
(Rent Greater Than 50% of Income)
 
% ELI Households
% VLI Households
% LI Households
% ELI Households
% VLI Households
% LI Households
United States
70%
64%
29%
56%
20%
4%
Pennsylvania
69%
60%
23%
53%
16%
3%
Delaware
68%
65%
26%
53%
18%
2%
Maryland
70%
61%
24%
54%
13%
2%
New Jersey
71%
69%
34%
56%
21%
4%
New York
73%
69%
36%
60%
26%
5%
Ohio
69%
59%
19%
53%
14%
2%
West Virginia
62%
54%
20%
48%
15%
2%

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables F5C and F5D, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 9: Housing Unit Problems in 2000
 
% With At Least One Housing Unit Problem (Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities or Overcrowding)
 
% ELI Households
% VLI Households
% LI Households
United States
14%
15%
14%
Pennsylvania
7%
6%
5%
Delaware
9%
11%
8%
Maryland
10%
12%
9%
New Jersey
14%
16%
14%
New York
17%
18%
17%
Ohio
6%
5%
5%
West Virginia
5%
5%
4%

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables F5C and F5D, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 10: Affordable Rental Housing Units 2000
 
Affordable Units per 100 Renter Households With Household Incomes:
 
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
United States
84
130
153
Pennsylvania
96
152
157
Delaware
97
148
167
Maryland
87
148
160
New Jersey
66
107
152
New York
63
99
139
Ohio
96
172
161
West Virginia
124
156
158

Note: This study’s indicators of shortages cumulate all households by income and all rental units by affordability, below the three income thresholds of 30 percent, 50 percent and 80 percent of AMI. Details are in Appendix C.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables A10C and A12, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 11: Affordable and Available Housing Units and Shortages in 2000
 
Affordable Units per 100 Renter Households With Household Incomes:
Affordable and Available Units per 100 Renter Households With Household Income:
ELI Renter Houehold: Total Shortage of Affordable and Available Units42
 
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
United States
84
130
153
42
74
103
(4,672,590)
Pennsylvania
96
152
157
49
87
107
(170,320)43
Delaware
97
148
167
49
83
109
(8,750)
Maryland
87
148
160
47
83
105
(76,965)
New Jersey
66
107
152
37
64
98
(154,530)
New York
63
99
139
35
60
94
(563,090)
Ohio
96
172
161
52
96
111
(159,980)
West Virginia
124
156
158
56
93
112
(22,525)

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables A10C and A12, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 12: Cost Burden Incidence in 2000 (Equivalent data are available for all counties in Appendix D)
 
% With Any Cost Burden
% With Severe Cost Burden
 
ELI Households
VLI Households
LI Households
ELI Households
VLI Households
LI Households
Pennsylvania Total
69%
60%
23%
53%
16%
3%
Counties With the Greatest Percentage of ELI Renters Who Had Severe Cost Burdens
Monroe County
80%
74%
33%
68%
19%
2%
Centre County
79%
72%
30%
67%
28%
4%
Wayne County
72%
63%
20%
63%
21%
1%
Delaware County
74%
75%
29%
63%
25%
4%
Chester County
74%
75%
37%
61%
32%
5%
Montgomery County
72%
74%
39%
61%
29%
6%
Pike County
76%
68%
20%
61%
21%
1%
Counties With the Smallest Percentage of ELI Renters Who Had Severe Cost Burdens
Lebanon County
63%
45%
14%
40%
8%
1%
Perry County
61%
43%
8%
39%
9%
1%
Sullivan County
59%
49%
6%
39%
14%
0%
Schuylkill County
56%
49%
14%
38%
9%
1%
Huntingdon County
56%
38%
10%
38%
7%
0%
Juniata County
47%
35%
10%
35%
8%
1%
Forest County
49%
34%
9%
31%
15%
0%

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables F5C and F5D, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 13: Affordable and Available Housing Units in 2000 (Equivalent data are available for all counties in Appendix D)
 
Affordable Units per 100 Renter Households
With Household Incomes:
Affordable and Available Units per 100 Renter Households
With Household Incomes:
 
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
Pennsylvania
96
152
157
49
87
107
Counties With the Largest Shortages of Units Affordable and Available Units per 100 ELI Households
Centre County
54
95
128
24
55
94
Monroe County
76
126
167
29
67
106
Delaware County
56
121
158
30
69
104
Montgomery County
71
123
181
32
62
100
Pike County
86
134
146
33
72
105
Bucks County
75
114
173
37
56
98
Lancaster County
88
179
169
38
82
104
Counties With the Smallest Shortages of Units Affordable and Available Units per 100 ELI Households
Fayette County
138
175
140
72
109
112
Sullivan County
240
248
171
73
112
115
Huntingdon County
195
218
171
73
103
110
Schuylkill County
177
207
168
76
110
115
Cambria County
170
196
158
82
108
113
Elk County
215
236
160
83
116
113
Juniata County
263
267
181
86
108
108

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables A10C and A12, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

Table 14: Actual Shortages/Surpluses in Affordable and Available Housing Units in 2000 (Equivalent data are available for all counties in Appendix D)
 
Affordable and Available Units With Household Income:
 
0-30% AMI
0-50% AMI
0-80% AMI
Pennsylvania
(170,324)
(76,950)
64,300
Counties With the Largest Shortages of Units Affordable and Available to ELI Renter Households
Philadelphia County
(49,810)
(19,265)
9,790
Allegheny County
(21,545)
(11,200)
10,330
Delaware County
(9,195)
(6,965)
1,360
Montgomery County
(7,345)
(8,000)
(105)
Lancaster County
(5,275)
(3,095)
1,295
Bucks County
(4,825)
(6,440)
(510)
Lehigh County
(4,750)
(3,655)
1,840
Counties With the Smallest Shortages of Units Affordable and Available to ELI Renter Households
Montour County
(132)
(10)
101
Elk County
(87)
190
255
Fulton County
(86)
30
83
Juniata County
(42)
50
92
Cameron County
(35)
55
77
Sullivan County
(27)
25
49
Forest County
(25)
6
22

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calculations based on CHAS data, U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2000, Tables A10C and A12, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cp.html External Link

Return to Chapter 3

  • 41Because of the rounding techniques applied to the different CHAS files, this total varies slightly from the total in other sections of the study. The percentage values in the other columns have not changed.
  • 42In general, national and state-level data presented in this chapter are similar to the information in the NLIHC’s 2004 report. As explained in another footnote in this chapter, some values vary slightly due to rounding. In this column in particular, the values do not match exactly because the calculation involves the total number of housing units instead of ratios, which will inevitably vary based on rounding.
  • 43Because of the rounding techniques applied to the different CHAS files, this total varies slightly from the Pennsylvania total in other sections of the study, including Table 14. The values in the other columns have not changed.
  • Last updated: Tuesday, February 2, 2010