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

Table 7: Income Distribution and Housing Problems in 2000
Table 8: Cost Burden Incidence in 2000
Table 9: Housing Unit Problems in 2000
Table 10: Affordable Rental Housing Units 2000
Table 11: Affordable and Available Housing Units and Shortages in 2000

County Level

Table 12: Cost Burden Incidence in 2000
Table 13: Affordable and Available Housing Units in 2000
Table 14: Actual Shortages/Surpluses in Affordable and Available Housing Units in 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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