MARCH 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES
MARCH 2023
ANDREW AURAND
Senior Vice President for Research
DAN EMMANUEL
Senior Research Analyst
EMMA FOLEY
Research Analyst
MATT CLARKE
Writer/Editor
IKRA RAFI
Creative Services Manager
DIANE YENTEL
President and CEO
ABOUT NLIHC
The National Low Income Housing Coalition is
dedicated to achieving racially and socially equitable
public policy that ensures people with the lowest
incomes have quality homes that are accessible and
affordable in communities of their choice.
Founded in 1974 by Cushing N. Dolbeare, NLIHC
educates, organizes, and advocates to ensure decent,
affordable housing for everyone.
Our goals are to preserve existing federally assisted
homes and housing resources, expand the supply of low
income housing, and establish housing stability as the
primary purpose of federal low-income housing policy.
MARCH 2023
A Shortage of
Affordable Homes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE HOMES 4
Affordable Rental Homes 4
Affordable, But Not Available 6
Recent Declines in Affordable and Available Rental Homes 9
HOUSING COST BURDENS 10
WHO ARE EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS? 12
RACIAL DISPARITIES AMONG EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS 13
HOUSING SHORTAGES FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS BY GEOGRAPHY 15
Shortages by State 15
Shortages in the 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas 18
LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 20
FEDERAL POLICY SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES 22
CONCLUSION 24
ABOUT THE DATA 25
FOR MORE INFORMATION 25
REFERENCES 25
APPENDIX A: STATE COMPARISONS 29
APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN COMPARISONS 30
T
he nation’s lowest-income renters have long
faced a severe shortage of aordable housing,
and the problem has only worsened in recent
years, as record-high ination and the loss of low-
cost rental homes have impacted renters nationwide.
ough ination has cooled and rent prices have
attened entering 2023, the nation’s lowest-income
renters still face enormous challenges nding and
maintaining safe and aordable rental housing.
Each year, the National Low Income Housing
Coalition (NLIHC) estimates the availability of
aordable rental homes, with a particular focus on
the housing needs of households with extremely
low incomes, dened as incomes at or below either
the federal poverty guideline or 30% of the area
median income (AMI) – whichever is greater. ese
households account for one-quarter, or 11 million,
of the nation’s 44.1 million renters and experience
signicant rates of nancial and housing precarity.
NLIHC’s annual Gap report provides estimates of
aordable housing needs in the U.S., including in
each state, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and the
largest metropolitan areas. e key ndings of this
year’s report are as follows:
1 “Renters” and “renter households” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to renter households.
• e shortage of aordable rental housing
primarily impacts renters with extremely low
incomes. Extremely low-income renters in the
U.S. face a shortage of 7.3 million aordable
and available rental homes, resulting in only 33
aordable and available homes for every 100
extremely low-income renter households.
1
• e shortage of aordable rental housing
worsened during the pandemic. Between
2019 and 2021, the shortage of aordable and
available rental homes for extremely low-income
renters worsened by more than 500,000 units, or
8%.
• Black, Latino, and Indigenous households
are disproportionately extremely low-income
renters and are disproportionately impacted by
this shortage. Nineteen percent of Black non-
Latino households, 17% of American Indian or
Alaska Native households, and 14% of Latino
households are extremely low-income renters,
compared to only 6% of white non-Latino
households.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
• Extremely low-income renters are the most
likely renters to spend a high share of their
income on rent. Seventy-two percent (8.1
million) of the nation’s 11.0 million extremely
low-income renter households are severely
housing cost-burdened, spending more than
half of their incomes on rent and utilities. ey
experience severe cost burdens at more than
double the rate of any other income group
and account for more than 72% of all severely
housing cost-burdened renters in the U.S.
• e dearth of aordable and available homes for
extremely low-income renters impacts all states
and the 50 largest metro areas, none of which
have an adequate supply for the lowest-income
renters. e current relative supply by state
ranges from 17 aordable and available homes
for every 100 extremely low-income renter
households in Nevada to 58 in South Dakota. In
12 out of 50 of the country’s largest metro areas,
the absolute shortage of aordable and available
homes for extremely low-income renters exceeds
100,000 units.
ese ndings underline the importance of large-
scale, long-term policy solutions to meet the
housing needs of renters with the lowest incomes.
Any reduction in federal aordable housing
resources will only exacerbate the existing shortage,
which is already acute. e federal government
must preserve and expand the stock of deeply
aordable housing, expand housing vouchers to all
eligible households, invest in a housing stabilization
program that provides renters with emergency funds
when they experience unexpected nancial shocks,
and strengthen and enforce renter protections. State
and local governments also have an important role
to play in improving access to aordable housing,
including reforming zoning and reducing other
land-use restrictions to bolster aordable housing
development. ese local reforms are necessary, but
insucient without federal resources, for eliminating
the shortage of aordable rental housing for the
nation’s lowest-income renters.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
2
T
he past three years – characterized by a
global pandemic, widespread job losses,
record-breaking ination, unusually low
vacancy rates, and skyrocketing rental prices – have
underlined and exacerbated the nancial precarity
experienced by the nation’s lowest-income renters.
Between January 2021 and December 2022, rental
prices increased 22% nationally (Apartment List,
2022). ese rent increases occurred across the
country and were not conned to certain markets.
As prices increased precipitously, the supply of rental
housing aordable to extremely low- and very low-
income renters declined by more than one million
units, continuing a long-term trend of a diminishing
supply (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b & 2020; Joint
Center for Housing Studies, 2022; Hermann, 2020).
Meanwhile, rental vacancy rates reached their
lowest point in nearly four decades. With only 5.6%
of rental units vacant at the end of 2021, renters’
choices about where to live became more and more
limited (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Despite small
improvements, the average vacancy rate in 2022 was
5.8%, a level not seen since the 1980s (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2023).
ese trends are reected in NLIHC’s most recent
analysis of aordable and available rental homes
for various income groups. Each year, NLIHC
uses American Community Survey (ACS) data
to estimate how many aordable rental homes are
available to extremely low-income households –
those with incomes at or below the federal poverty
guideline or 30% of AMI, whichever is greater – and
other income groups (Box 1). Aordable homes
are those with rents that do not exceed 30% of a
given income threshold. Homes are aordable and
available for a specic income group if they are
aordable and are either vacant or not occupied by a
higher-income household. e Gap report provides
2 Similar analyses, based on a dierent dataset, are available for every county, city, and town in the U.S. and can be acquired by contacting [email protected].
estimates of aordable housing needs in the U.S.,
including in each state, the District of Columbia
(D.C.), and the 50 largest metropolitan areas.
2
Extremely low-income renters likely have even
fewer housing options now than they did prior to
the pandemic. Between 2019 and 2021, the shortage
of aordable and available rental homes for them
increased by 8%, from 6.8 million to 7.3 million
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2022c; U.S. Census Bureau,
2020). As this report shows, we cannot successfully
resolve our aordable housing crisis without housing
assistance that adequately meets the housing needs
of renters with the lowest incomes.
INTRODUCTION
BOX 1: DEFINITIONS
AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI): The median family income
in the metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME (ELI): Households with
incomes at or below the federal poverty guideline or 30%
of AMI, whichever is higher
VERY LOW-INCOME (VLI): Households with incomes
between ELI and 50% of AMI
LOW-INCOME (LI): Households with incomes between
51% and 80% of AMI
MIDDLE-INCOME (MI): Households with incomes between
81% and 100% of AMI
ABOVE MEDIAN INCOME: Households with incomes
above 100% of AMI
COST BURDEN: Spending more than 30% of household
income on housing costs
SEVERE COST BURDEN: Spending more than 50% of
household income on housing costs
AFFORDABLE: Housing units with rent and utilities that do
not exceed 30% of a given income threshold
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE: Rental units that are both
affordable and either vacant or not occupied by higher-
income households
3
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
HOMES
Extremely low-income renters face the most severe
shortage of housing, with only 7.0 million aordable
rental homes for 11.0 million households. Of those
7.0 million rental units, 3.3 million are occupied by
higher-income households, leaving only 3.7 million
rental homes that are both aordable and available
for extremely low-income renters. is section
illustrates how the national shortage of aordable
housing is almost entirely attributable to the
shortage for extremely low-income renters.
Affordable Rental Homes
Extremely Low-Income Renters: Extremely
low-income households account for one-quarter,
or 11 million, of the nation’s 44.1 million renter
households. Using the standard denition of
aordability, which assumes households should
spend no more than 30% of their income on housing,
we nd that only 7.0 million units are aordable to
extremely low-income renters nationally.
3
is supply
leaves an absolute shortage of 4.0 million aordable
rental homes. Extremely low-income renters are the
only income group to face this absolute shortage of
aordable homes; for all other income groups, there
are enough aordable rental units to accommodate
all households (Figure 1).
3 e 30% standard is commonly used to estimate the scope of housing aordability problems and serves as the basis for some administrative policies, but some
households may struggle even at this level of housing cost (Stone, 2006).
Very Low-Income Renters: Approximately 6.8
million renter households have very low incomes
(i.e., incomes between extremely low-income and
50% of AMI), but households in that income group
can aord the same 7.0 million rental homes that are
aordable to extremely low-income renters, as well
as another 9.2 million more expensive rental homes.
In total, 16.2 million rental homes are aordable to
the 6.8 million very low-income renter households.
A cumulative shortage remains, however, when
we examine extremely low- and very low-income
renter households together, for which there are 16.2
million units for 17.8 million households.
Low-Income Renters: Nearly 9.2 million renter
households have low incomes (i.e., incomes between
51% and 80% of AMI). ese renters can aord the
16.2 million homes aordable to extremely low-
income and very low-income renters, as well as an
additional 18.6 million more expensive rental homes.
In total, 34.8 million rental homes are aordable to
the 9.2 million low-income renters.
Middle Income: Approximately 4.6 million renters
are middle-income (i.e., with incomes between
81% and 100% of AMI). Middle-income renters
can aord all the homes that low-income renters
can aord, plus an additional 6.2 million more
expensive rental homes, so the total national supply
of aordable rental housing for that group is 41.0
million units.
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS LIKELY HAVE
EVEN FEWER HOUSING OPTIONS NOW THAN
THEY DID PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
4
FIGURE 1: RENTAL UNITS AND RENTERS IN THE US, MATCHED BY
AFFORDABILITY AND INCOME CATEGORIES (IN MILLIONS)
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2021 ACS PUMS data.
Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Middle-Income Above Median Income
Households
(By Income Category)
11.0m Households
6.8m Households
9.2m Households
4.6m Households
12.5m Households
CAN AFFORD
CAN AFFORD
CAN AFFORD
CAN AFFORD
CAN AFFORD
Cumulative Units
(By Affordability Category)
46m Units
(41.0 + 5.0)
41.0m Units
(34.8 + 6.2)
34.8m Units
(16.2 + 18.6)
16.2m Units
(7.0 + 9.2)
7.0m Units
FIGURE 2: MOST EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS RESIDE IN
UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AFFORDABLE
AND AVAILABLE FOR HIGHER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
NUMBER OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BY RENTAL AFFORDABILITY LEVEL (IN MILLIONS)
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
AMI = Area Median Income
3.3 2.6 3.5 0.8 0.5
Affordable at or below
poverty guideline or
30% of AMI (ELI)
Affordable to ELI
to 50% of AMI
Affordable to 51%
to 80% of AMI
Affordable to
81% to 100%
of AMI
Affordable to over
100% of AMI
5
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
Figure 1 illustrates the mismatch between the
number of households within an income bracket and
the number of aordable rental homes.
Affordable, But Not Available
e shortage of aordable housing for the lowest-
income renters becomes even more severe when we
take into account the availability of these aordable
homes. In the private market, households can occupy
homes that cost less than 30% of their incomes, and
many do. When higher-income households occupy
rental homes that are aordable to lower-income
households, they render those homes unavailable
to the lower-income households. Extremely low-
income renters must compete with all higher-
income households for the limited number of rental
homes aordable to them in the private market.
Of the 7.0 million homes aordable to extremely
low-income households, only 3.7 million are
available to them either because they are vacant or
because they are already occupied by extremely low-
income renters. Of the 3.3 million aordable units
that are not available, approximately 2.0 million
are occupied by very low-income and low-income
households, and 1.3 million are occupied by middle-
income and higher-income households. at leaves
a shortage of 7.3 million aordable and available
homes for renters with extremely low incomes.
As a result of this shortage, the majority of
extremely low-income renters are forced to rent
homes they cannot aord and that would otherwise
be available to higher-income renters who could
aord them. Among extremely low-income renters,
roughly 2.6 million reside in homes aordable to
very low-income households, 3.5 million are in
homes aordable to low-income households, and 1.3
million reside in homes aordable to middle-income
and higher-income households (Figure 2).
e relative supply of aordable and available rental
homes improves as incomes increase, because more
housing becomes available to renters at higher
incomes. For every 100 extremely low-income
renter households, there are only 33 aordable and
available rental homes (Figure 3). Fifty-ve rental
homes are aordable and available for every 100
renter households with incomes at or below 50%
of AMI. Ninety and 99 rental homes are aordable
and available for every 100 renter households
with incomes at or below 80% and 100% of AMI,
respectively. e shortages are cumulative, so the
FIGURE 3: THE RELATIVE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTAL
HOMES INCREASES WITH INCOME
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTER HOMES PER 100 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, 2021
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
AMI = Area Median Income
At 100% AMI
At 80% AMI
At 50% AMI
At Extremely
Low Income
33
55
90
99
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
6
apparent shortage for renters with incomes above
50% of AMI can be explained by the signicant
shortage of aordable and available rental homes
for those with incomes below 50% of AMI.
Box 2 illustrates the incremental change in the
number of renters at increasing levels of income,
alongside the incremental increase in the number
of rental homes that are aordable and available.
e infographic shows how the cumulative shortage
shrinks signicantly at incomes between 51% and
80% of AMI.
e shortage of aordable and available homes is
most severe for extremely low-income renters, for
whom there are only 3.7 million aordable and
available units for 11.0 million households. is
group faces a shortage of 7.3 million aordable and
available homes. e second row in Box 2 illustrates
that an additional 6.8 million renter households
have incomes between extremely low-income and
50% of AMI and that an additional 6.1 million
rental homes become aordable and available to
households with incomes below 50% of AMI. As
a result, the cumulative shortage of aordable and
available rental homes increases by 0.7 million to
8.0 million.
e cumulative shortage decreases at higher levels of
income. Expanding the number of renter households
from those with incomes less than 50% of AMI to
include all those earning less than 80% of AMI adds
9.2 million households and 14.6 million aordable
and available rental homes to the cumulative totals.
Not all 14.6 million units are available to households
specically with incomes between 51% and 80%
of AMI, because they are occupied by renters
with incomes below 50% of AMI, but the overall
shortage of aordable and available rental homes
decreases by 5.4 million to 2.6 million. At median
income, the cumulative shortage nearly disappears.
e bars in Figure 4 represent the incremental
change in the cumulative shortage at each step up in
income. e most severe shortage of aordable and
available housing is faced by extremely low-income
renters. e dashed line represents the cumulative
shortage of aordable and available homes, which
eventually becomes a cumulative surplus for higher-
income renters. Each point on the line corresponds
There are 44.1 million renter households…
…and 46.0 million rental units with complete
kitchen and plumbing.
ALL INCOMES
< 80% AMI
< 100% AMI
< 50% AMI
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
An additional 9.2 million renter
households have low incomes…
…and an additional 14.6 million
affordableunits are available to
renters with incomes below 80% of
AMI.
The cumulative shortage of rental
units declines to 2.6 million,
because more affordable and
available units than households are
added to the cumulative totals.
The cumulative shortage of rental
units shrinks to 200,000.
An additional 4.6 million renter
households have moderate
incomes between 80% and 100%
of AMI…
…and an additional 7.0 million
affordable units are available to
renters with incomes below 100%
AMI.
Overall, there are 44.1 million rental
households and 46.0 million rental
units.
An additional 12.5 million renter
households have above-median
incomes…
…and 14.6 million more units are
affordable to renters with
above-median incomes.
Among these 44.1 million renter
households, 11.0 million have
extremely low incomes…
…but only 3.7 millionrentalunits
areaffordable and available to
extremely low-income house-
holds.
At this income level, renters face a
shortage of 7.3 million rental units.
An additional 6.8 million renter
households have very low-in-
comes…
…and an additional 6.1 million
units are affordable and available
to renters with incomes below 50%
of area median income (AMI).
The shortage of rental units increas-
es to 8.0 million, because more
households than affordable and
available rental units are added to
the cumulative totals.
44.1
46.0
BOX 2: INCREMENTAL CHANGES TO THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE AND
AVAILABLE HOUSING BY INCOME LEVEL
7
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
FIGURE 4: THE MOST SEVERE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
HOUSING IS FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS
INCREMENTAL CHANGE TO SURPLUS (DEFICIT) OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTAL HOMES. 2021 (IN MILLIONS)
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
-7.3
-0.7
5.4
2.4
2.1
-8.0
-2.6
-0.2
1.9
Extremely
Low-Income (ELI)
Very Low-Income
(ELI-50% of AMI)
Low-Income
(51-80% of AMI)
Middle Income
(81-100% of AMI)
Above Median
Income
(>100% of AMI)
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) of Affordable
and Available Rental Homes
Surplus (Deficit) Within Income Band
There are 44.1 million renter households…
…and 46.0 million rental units with complete
kitchen and plumbing.
ALL INCOMES
< 80% AMI
< 100% AMI
< 50% AMI
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
An additional 9.2 million renter
households have low incomes…
…and an additional 14.6 million
affordableunits are available to
renters with incomes below 80% of
AMI.
The cumulative shortage of rental
units declines to 2.6 million,
because more affordable and
available units than households are
added to the cumulative totals.
The cumulative shortage of rental
units shrinks to 200,000.
An additional 4.6 million renter
households have moderate
incomes between 80% and 100%
of AMI…
…and an additional 7.0 million
affordable units are available to
renters with incomes below 100%
AMI.
Overall, there are 44.1 million rental
households and 46.0 million rental
units.
An additional 12.5 million renter
households have above-median
incomes…
…and 14.6 million more units are
affordable to renters with
above-median incomes.
Among these 44.1 million renter
households, 11.0 million have
extremely low incomes…
…but only 3.7 millionrentalunits
areaffordable and available to
extremely low-income house-
holds.
At this income level, renters face a
shortage of 7.3 million rental units.
An additional 6.8 million renter
households have very low-in-
comes…
…and an additional 6.1 million
units are affordable and available
to renters with incomes below 50%
of area median income (AMI).
The shortage of rental units increas-
es to 8.0 million, because more
households than affordable and
available rental units are added to
the cumulative totals.
44.1
46.0
BOX 2: INCREMENTAL CHANGES TO THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE AND
AVAILABLE HOUSING BY INCOME LEVEL
to the dierence between the cumulative number
of renters and the cumulative number of aordable
and available homes for households at or below that
income level.
e ACS, on which our analysis is based, does
not capture the number of people experiencing
homelessness, so we underestimate the shortage of
aordable and available housing. Approximately
582,500 people were experiencing homelessness on
a given night in 2022 (U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 2022). Of this number,
421,392 were individuals and 161,070 were people
in approximately 51,000 families, meaning that
an additional 472,392 homes would be needed to
house all people experiencing homelessness. e real
shortage of rental homes aordable and available to
extremely low-income households is therefore closer
to 7.8 million. Even this estimate is conservative,
as it does not account for individuals and families
that are doubled-up with others due to a lack of
other housing options. Recent estimates nd that an
additional 3.7 million individuals are experiencing
doubled-up homelessness (Richard et al., 2022).
Recent Declines in Affordable and
Available Rental Homes
ree factors could explain the increase in the
shortage of aordable and available rental homes
for extremely low-income renters from 6.8 million
to 7.3 million between 2019 and 2021: an increase
in the number of extremely low-income renters, a
decrease in the number of apartments aordable to
extremely low-income renters, and an increase in the
number of higher-income renters occupying units
aordable to extremely low-income renters.
e number of extremely low-income renter
households increased from 10.8 million in 2019
to 11.0 million in 2021. is increase may be due,
at least in part, to greater unemployment and
employment volatility following the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, 6.3% of the civilian
labor force was unemployed, compared to 4.5%
in 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020). Workers in low-wage occupations
were particularly vulnerable to job loss and faced
barriers to re-entering the workforce, such as the
slow recovery of jobs in sectors like leisure and
hospitality and potentially greater fear of contracting
COVID-19 given that low-wage occupations are
more likely to require face-to-face contact with the
public (Bateman and Ross, 2021).
e worsening shortage is also a result of a
decline in the number of aordable rental homes
for extremely low-income renters. Median rents
skyrocketed in 2021, increasing 18% between
January 2021 and January 2022 (Apartment List,
2022). At the same time, rental vacancy rates hit
lows not seen since the 1980’s (U.S. Census Bureau,
2023). Not surprisingly, the number of rental homes
aordable to extremely low-income renters declined
from 7.4 million to 7.0 million between 2019 and
2021.
e decrease in aordable and available rental
homes for extremely low-income renters does not
THE WORSENING
SHORTAGE IS
ALSO A RESULT
OF A DECLINE
IN THE NUMBER
OF AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOMES FOR
EXTREMELY LOW-
INCOME RENTERS.
9
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
appear to be the result of more higher-income
households moving into low-cost units that would
otherwise be aordable and available to extremely
low-income renters. Between 2019 and 2021, the
number of higher-income households living in
rental homes aordable to extremely low-income
renters declined from 3.4 million to 3.3 million.
HOUSING COST BURDENS
Households are considered housing cost-burdened
when they spend more than 30% of their incomes
on rent and utilities. ey are considered severely
cost-burdened when they spend more than 50%
of their incomes on their housing. Because cost-
burdened households spend a higher share of their
income on housing, they have less to spend on other
necessities, such as food, childcare, transportation,
and healthcare.
Extremely low-income renters are far more likely
than others to experience severe housing cost-
burden. Eighty-six percent of all extremely low-
income renters experience housing cost-burden and
73% are severely cost-burdened (Figure 5). Renters
with higher incomes are far less likely to experience
severe cost-burdens. Seventy-seven percent of very
low-income households are housing cost-burdened,
but far fewer (34%) experience severe cost-burdens
compared to extremely low-income renters. e
FIGURE 5: EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS DISPROPORTIONATELY
EXPERIENCE SEVERE HOUSING COST BURDENS
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSING COST BURDENS BY INCOME GROUP, 2021
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
86%
2%
47%
8%
21%
6%
1%
34%
77%
73%
Extremely
Low-Income
Very Low-Income Low-Income Middle Income Above Median
Income
Cost Burden
Severe Cost Burden
EXTREMELY
LOW-INCOME
RENTERS ARE
FAR MORE LIKELY
THAN OTHERS
TO EXPERIENCE
SEVERE HOUSING
COST-BURDEN.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
10
share of low-income, middle-income, and above-
median-income renters who are severely cost-
burdened is 8%, 2%, and 1%, respectively.
Of the 11.3 million severely cost-burdened renter
households, 8.1 million, or 72%, are extremely low-
income, 2.3 million are very low-income, 713,000
are low-income, and 188,000 are middle- or higher-
income (Figure 6). Combined, extremely low-, very
low-, and low-income households account for 98% of
all severely cost-burdened renters.
Severely cost-burdened extremely low-income
renters have little, if any, money remaining for other
necessities after paying their rent. An extremely
low-income family of four with a monthly income of
4 is amount served as the poverty guideline in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and the District of Columbia for a four-person family in 2022.
5 e weighted average of two-bedroom fair market rents (FMRs) by FMR area (NLIHC, 2022a).
$2,312
4
paying the average two-bedroom fair market
rent of $1,342
5
only has $970 left each month
to cover other expenses (National Low Income
Housing Coalition, 2022a). e U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s (USDA) thrifty food budget for
a family of four (two adults and two school-aged
children) estimates a family needs to spend $967
per month to cover food alone, leaving $3 for
transportation, childcare, and all other necessities
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2022). Struggles to
aord basic necessities have worsened over the last
two years, as ination has impacted prices for nearly
all household goods (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2023a).
Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Middle-Income Above Median Income
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2021 ACS PUMS data.
FIGURE 6: EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS MAKE UP MAJORITY OF
SEVERELY COST-BURDENED RENTERS
SEVERELY COST-BURDENED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP, 2021
72%
20%
6%
1%
1%
11
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
e residual income approach to measuring housing
aordability is another way to identify households
who are overly burdened by their housing costs. is
approach assesses whether households have enough
income left for non-housing basic necessities after
paying their rent. Research indicates that 100% of
renters with annual household incomes less than
$30,000, and 81% of renters with annual household
incomes between $30,000 and $44,999, were unable
to aord other basic necessities after they paid
for their housing (Airgood-Obrycki et al., 2022).
Families with children are more likely to experience
residual income cost burden than single individuals
and couples without children.
WHO ARE EXTREMELY LOW-
INCOME RENTERS?
Most extremely low-income renters either work in
low-wage jobs or may be unable to work. ey are
more likely than other renters to be seniors or have
disabilities. Among extremely low-income renter
householders, 35% are in the labor force, 30% are
seniors, 18% have a disability, and 7% are students
or single-adult caregivers to young children or
household members with a disability (Figure 7).
In 2021, 39% of extremely low-income renter
households in the labor force worked at least
Note: Mutually exclusive categories applied in the following order: senior, disabled, in labor force, enrolled in school, single adult caregiver
of a child under 7 or of a household member with a disability, and other. Senior means householder or householder’s spouse (if applicable)
is at least 62 years of age. Disabled means householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of
them has a disability. Working hours refers to the number of hours usually worked by householder and householder's spouse (if applicable).
School means householder and householder's spouse (if applicable) are enrolled in school. Thirteen percent of extremely low-income
renter households include a single adult caregiver, 49% of whom usually work more than 20 hours per week. Ten percent of extremely
low-income renter householders are enrolled in school, 47% of whom usually work more than 20 hours per week. Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
FIGURE 7: MOST EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDERS ARE IN LABOR
FORCE, ARE SENIORS, OR HAVE A DISABILITY
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
40+ hours / week
20 to 39 hours / week
< 20 hours / week
Unemployed
30%
39%
11%
20%
In Labor Force
35%
3%
School
4%
Other
11%
Disabled
18%
Senior
30%
Single non-disabled non-elderly caregiver
of person w/ disability or young child
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
12
40 hours per week and 30% worked between 20
and 39 hours per week. Often, though, low-wage
employment does not provide income adequate
to aord housing. e national average wage that
must be earned by a full-time worker to aord a
modest one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartment
is $21.25 and $25.82 per hour, respectively (National
Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022a). Eleven of
the 25 largest occupations in the country, including
home health aides, janitors, nursing assistants, and
food servers pay a median wage that is far less than
this. e average per-hour wage needed to aord
a modest two-bedroom apartment is at least $10
more than the median wages provided by these
occupations.
Beyond low wages, extremely low-income workers
experienced elevated rates of unemployment
at the height of the pandemic – a result of the
disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on workers
in low-wage occupations. Between 2019 and 2021,
unemployment among extremely low-income
renters in the labor force increased from 13% to
20%. Low-wage industries make up 30% of all
jobs nationally but accounted for 59% of jobs lost
between February 2020 and October 2021 (Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022).
Employment has improved signicantly since mid-
2020, with the national unemployment rate falling
from 10.2% in July 2020 to 3.4% in January 2023
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023c). Yet even as
many low-wage renters regain employment, their
wages remain insucient to aord housing. At the
same time, not all wage increases have kept pace
with recent high rates of ination. Households
earning less than $20,000 per year saw their costs
of living increase at three times the rate of their
wage growth in 2021 (Arnon, He, & Sun, 2022). In
comparison, households earning more than $60,000
annually saw their incomes increase at a higher rate
than their costs of living. Meanwhile, during 2022,
wage earners nationally experienced a 1.7% decrease
in their real wages (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2023d).
While Figure 7 categorizes extremely low-income
renters into mutually exclusive groups for simplicity,
the lived experience of these renters often involves
juggling multiple responsibilities, like working to
make ends meet at the same time as serving as a
primary caretaker or pursuing further education in
school. More than 13% of extremely low-income
renters are single-adult caregivers of a young child
or of a household member with a disability. Nearly
60% of these caregivers also participate in the
labor force, with 25% percent working at least 40
hours per week and another 24% typically working
between 20 and 39 hours per week. Ten percent of
extremely low-income renters are enrolled in school,
29% of whom usually work 20 to 39 hours per week,
and another 18% work at least 40 hours per week.
Without housing assistance or increases in their
hourly wages, they cannot rely on their work hours
to aord their homes.
RACIAL DISPARITIES AMONG
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS
e shortage of aordable and available housing
disproportionately aects Black, Latino, and
Native and Alaska Native households, as these
households are both more likely to be renters and
to have extremely low incomes. ey are more than
twice as likely as white households to be extremely
low-income renters. For example, 57% of Black
households are renters and 19% are extremely
low-income renters. Fifty-two percent of Latino
households are renters and 14% are extremely
low-income renters. In contrast, 27% of white
households are renters and 6% are extremely low-
income renters (Figure 8).
13
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
ese disparities are the
product of historical
and ongoing injustices
that have systematically
disadvantaged people of
color, often preventing them
from owning a home and
signicantly limiting wealth
accumulation. Some of these
injustices persist to this day,
including discrimination
in both the housing and
labor markets. ough many
obviously racist institutions
and practices, like slavery
and de jure segregation, have
ended, our society has failed
to eliminate discriminatory
practices and redress the
economic inequalities
produced by racist policies
(Box 3).
Homeowners Renters Extremely Low-Income Renters
FIGURE 8: HOUSEHOLDS OF COLOR MORE LIKELY THAN WHITE
HOUSEHOLDS TO BE RENTERS AND HAVE EXTREMELY LOW INCOMES
SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE AND RACE
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
Black, non-Latino Latino American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian White, non-Latino
27%
57%
38%
45%
52%
19%
62%
55%
48%
43%
6%
9%
17%
14%
73%
BOX 3: HISTORICAL DRIVERS OF
HOUSING INEQUITY
Decades of racial discrimination by real estate agents, banks, insurers, and the federal
government have made homeownership difcult to obtain for people of color. Many
factors kept people of color from being able to purchase homes through the middle
of the twentieth century: pervasive refusal of whites to live in racially integrated
neighborhoods, physical violence targeting people of color who tried to integrate
(which was often tolerated by police), restrictive covenants forbidding home sales to
Black buyers who would integrate neighborhoods (some of which were mandated by
the Federal Housing Administration), and federal housing policy that denied borrowers
access to credit in minority neighborhoods (Massey & Denton, 1993; Coates, 2014;
Rothstein, 2017). Being denied the ability to purchase homes also meant that people of
color did not benet from the appreciation in the value of these homes, a major driver of
the racial wealth gap.
While overt discrimination was outlawed by the “Fair Housing Act of 1968,” subtler forms
of housing discrimination continue to constrain the options of people of color. HUD’s fair
housing tests in 28 metropolitan areas in 2013 found that Black homebuyers were shown
17.7% fewer homes than white homebuyers with the same qualications and preferences
(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013). More recent fair housing
investigations show similar unfavorable treatment of people of color, including being
shown fewer homes and not being given the same information as whites (Chicago
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, 2018; Choi, Herbert, Winslow, & Browne, 2019).
Today’s credit scoring system and lending practices also continue to serve as barriers to
minority homeownership (Rice & Swesnik, 2012; Bartlett et al., 2019).
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
14
e impacts of sustained discrimination and
oppression show up not just in homeownership
disparities but also in income disparities across
racial and ethnic groups. e 2021 ACS indicates
that the median annual income of Black households
was $46,774, nearly $30,000 less than the median
income of white households ($75,412). e median
annual income of Latino households was $60,566,
and the median annual income for American Indian
and Alaska Native households was $53,149. ese
disparities reect the fact that Black and Latino
workers are less likely to work in sectors with higher
median wages and tend to be paid less than white
workers even within the same occupations (
Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2023b; Wilson, Miller, & Kassa,
2021)
.
Renters of color are much more likely to be housing
cost-burdened: 55% of Black renters and 52% of
Latino renters are housing cost-burdened, compared
to 44% of white renters (Figure 9). Nearly one-third
of Black renters but only 23% of white renters are
severely cost-burdened, spending more than half of
their income on housing. Racial disparities in cost
burdens can be partially explained by income, as the
disparity shrinks when looking only at extremely
low-income renters. Extremely low-income renters
who are Latino, Black, and white experience housing
cost-burdens at a rate of 88%, 87%, and 85%,
respectively (Figure 9), and severe cost-burdens at a
rate of 75%, 74%, and 72%.
HOUSING SHORTAGES FOR
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS BY GEOGRAPHY
Shortages by State
e aordable housing crisis aects communities
nationwide, as no state has an adequate supply of
rental housing aordable and available for extremely
low-income households (Figure 10 and Appendix
A). e absolute shortage ranges from 10,215 rental
homes in Wyoming to nearly 1 million in California.
Extremely low-income renters face the most severe
shortages in Nevada, Oregon, Florida, California,
Arizona, and Texas. Nevada has only 17 aordable
and available rental homes for every 100 extremely
low-income renter households. Oregon and Florida
both have only 23, followed by California and
Arizona (24/100). e states with the greatest
relative supply of aordable and available rental
homes for extremely low-income renters still have
signicant shortages. e states with the lowest
relative shortages are South Dakota, with 58
aordable and available rental homes for every 100
extremely low-income renter households, Rhode
Island (53/100), Mississippi (51/100), West Virginia
(50/100), and North Dakota (50/100).
In every state, more than half of extremely low-
income renters are severely housing cost-burdened.
In 12 states, more than three-quarters of extremely
low-income renters are severely housing cost-
THE STATES WITH THE GREATEST RELATIVE
SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
RENTAL HOMES FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
RENTERS STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGES.
15
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
FIGURE 9: BLACK AND LATINO RENTERS EXPERIENCE HIGHER RATES OF
HOUSING COST-BURDEN THAN WHITE RENTERS
COST-BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
COST-BURDEN AMONG EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS, BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden
55%
32%
52%
45%
44%
42%
41%
28%
26%
23%
25%
21%
Black, non-Latino Latino American Indian
or Alaska Native
AsianWhite,
non-Latino
Other
Black, non-Latino Latino American Indian
or Alaska Native
AsianWhite,
non-Latino
Other
Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden
87%
74%
88%
77%
85%
85%
85%
75%
60%
72%
72%
75%
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
16
burdened, with the largest shares in Nevada (86%),
Florida (83%), Oregon (80%), Arizona (80%), and
Texas (79%). Maine and Rhode Island have the
smallest, but still signicant, percentage of extremely
low-income renters with severe cost burdens, with
52% and 60%, respectively.
Within each state, the shortage of aordable and
available rental homes starts to dissipate when
moving higher up the income ladder. For example,
all states and the District of Columbia have a
shortage of aordable and available rental housing
for extremely low-income renters, and all but one
state has a shortage for all renters whose household
incomes fall below 50% of AMI. irty states and
D.C. have a cumulative shortage for all renters
with household incomes below 80% of AMI. e
cumulative shortage of housing in most states
disappears once all households below 100% of AMI
are added together. e fact that there are enough
homes for higher-income households obscures the
shortage for the lowest-income households. Still,
nine states with high-cost metropolitan regions –
California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont – have
cumulative shortages for all renters whose household
incomes fall at or below 100% of AMI.
FIGURE 10: RENTAL HOMES AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
PER 100 EXTREMELY LOW INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY STATE
Note: Extremely low-income (ELI) renter households have incomes at or below the poverty level or 30% of the area median
income. Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2021 1-Year ACS PUMS Data.
ME
49
NY
32
PA
38
VA
32
WV
50
OH
40
IN
39
MI
36
IL
34
WI
35
MN
38
IA
40
MO
44
AR
47
LA
39
TX
25
OK
39
KS
40
NE
38
ND
50
SD
58
MT
45
ID
38
WA
28
OR
23
CA
24
AK
35
HI
34
WY
41
CO
26
UT
33
NV
17
AZ
24
NM
36
NC
39
TN
41
KY
46
SC
42
GA
34
AL
49
MS
51
FL
23
30 or Fewer
Between 31 and 40
Between 41 and 45
More than 45
MA–44
RI–53
CT–37
NJ–31
DE–27
MD–30
DC–40
NH–38
VT–35
17
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
Shortages in the 50 Largest
Metropolitan Areas
Every major metropolitan area in the U.S. has a
shortage of aordable and available rental homes
for extremely low-income renters (Appendix B). Of
the 50 largest metropolitan areas, extremely low-
income renters face the most severe shortages in
Las Vegas, NV (where there are 14 aordable and
available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-
income renter households), followed by Orlando,
FL, Dallas, TX, Austin, TX, Houston, TX, San
Diego, CA, and Phoenix, AZ (Table 1).
e largest metropolitan areas with the least severe
shortages of rental homes aordable and available
to extremely low-income renters are Providence, RI
(where there are 48 homes for every 100 extremely
low-income renter households), Pittsburgh, PA,
Boston, MA, Kansas City, MO, Cincinnati, OH,
and Cleveland, OH. While these areas have the
least severe shortages, they each still have fewer
than half the supply of aordable and available
homes needed for extremely low-income renters
(Table 1).
High rates of severe cost burden persist across every
metropolitan area. Not surprisingly, severe cost
burdens are most prevalent in areas with extreme
shortages of aordable and available housing. More
than 85% of extremely low-income renters in Las
Vegas, Orlando, Austin, and Dallas experience
severe housing cost burdens. Metropolitan areas
with less severe shortages of aordable and available
rental housing have lower yet still high rates of
severe cost burdens. In every major metropolitan
area, more than 60% of extremely low-income
renters living in the area are severely cost-burdened.
TABLE 1: LEAST AND MOST SEVERE SHORTAGES OF RENTAL HOMES
AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS THE 50
LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS
LEAST SEVERE MOST SEVERE
Metropolitan Area
Affordable
and Available
Rental Homes
per 100 Renter
Households Metropolitan Area
Affordable
and Available
Rental Homes
per 100 Renter
Households
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 48 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 14
Pittsburgh, PA 48 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 15
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 44 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 16
Kansas City, MO-KS 39 Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX 16
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
38 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 19
Cleveland-Elyra, OH 38 San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA 19
St. Louis, MO-IL 37 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 19
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 36
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
20
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 35 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 20
Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown, CT 35 Jacksonville, FL 21
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 21
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
18
e lack of housing assistance is one factor driving
severe housing cost burdens among extremely
low-income renters. Figure 11 shows the inverse
relationship between severe cost burdens and
HUD-assisted housing, which includes public
housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and project-
based rental assistance. As the share of rental
housing that is HUD-assisted increases, the share
of extremely low-income renters who are severely
cost-burdened decreases. More than half of the
variation in rates of severe cost burdens across the
largest metropolitan areas can be explained by
the share of rental housing that is HUD-assisted.
is relationship exists even after considering
rental vacancy rates, the share of rental housing in
multifamily buildings, and the age of the housing
stock.
In Boston, for example, 64% of extremely low-
income renter households are severely cost-
burdened, while HUD-assisted rental housing
represents a relatively high share (19%) of the
rental stock. Massachusetts also operates its own
state-funded public housing programs, which
provide thousands of additional subsidized units
in the Boston metropolitan area (Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community
Development, 2022). In contrast, 89% of extremely
low-income renters in the Las Vegas and Orlando
metropolitan areas are severely cost-burdened, while
HUD-assisted housing represents only 5% and 3%
of the rental housing stock, respectively.
19
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
FIGURE 11: GREATER HUD-ASSISTED SHARE OF RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER SHARE OF SEVERELY COST-BURDENED
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS
HUD-ASSISTED SHARE OF RENTAL STOCK BY SEVERELY COST-BURDENED SHARE OF
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RENTERS
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS and HUD Picture of Subsidized Households
HUD-Assisted Share of Rental Stock
Share of Severely Cost-Burdened ELI Renter Households
Providence, RI
Las Vegas, NV
Orlando, FL
Boston, MA
R
2
= 0.5145
LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
Eliminating the shortage of aordable and available
rental housing requires a combination of local, state,
and federal solutions. Local eorts like land use and
zoning reform are often necessary to allow more
rental housing development, including aordable
housing, but they are insucient on their own
to remedy the severe shortage of aordable and
available housing for the lowest-income tenants.
Exclusionary zoning that favors the development of
single-family homes, limits high-density housing,
and stipulates other restrictions like minimum lot
sizes, set-backs, and parking requirements severely
limits the amount and types of new housing that can
be built. ese regulations can constrain the supply
of housing and raise prices because they typically
increase the amount of land needed for each home.
Restrictive zoning regulations limit rental housing,
particularly multifamily developments (Schuetz,
2009; Pendall, 2000). Recent research nds that
in states categorized as “exclusionary” – where
regulations make it dicult to up-zone properties
to allow apartments – renters pay an additional
$122 per month in rent (Landis & Reina, 2021).
Exclusionary zoning regulations also exacerbate
segregation by prohibiting development of housing
that may be more aordable to non-white residents.
One study found the Black and Latino shares of the
population are 3.4 and 3.5 percentage points greater
in blocks zoned for multifamily housing than in
contiguous blocks zoned for single-family housing
(Resseger, 2013).
Zoning restrictions are widespread. A 2019 analysis
found that up to 75% of residential land across many
cities is zoned exclusively for detached single-family
homes (Badger & Bui, 2019). Additionally, a survey
of suburban land use regulations found minimum lot
size requirements are more widely used now than 10
years ago and are more severe (Gyourko et al., 2019).
Between 2006 and 2018, the share of suburban
municipalities with minimum lot size requirements
increased from 83% to 96%, and minimum sizes of
one or more acres became more common.
Some cities and states have enacted zoning reforms
to allow somewhat higher-density housing by-right,
meaning no special variance or zoning exception
is needed. Such requests for a variance that
require public notices and hearings can be time-
consuming and create opportunities for opponents
LOCAL EFFORTS LIKE LAND USE AND ZONING
REFORM ARE OFTEN NECESSARY TO ALLOW
MORE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THEY
ARE INSUFFICIENT ON THEIR OWN TO REMEDY
THE SEVERE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE
AND AVAILABLE HOUSING FOR THE LOWEST-
INCOME TENANTS.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
20
to successfully stop new development. ese
density-related reforms are too recent to permit
full evaluation of their impact, and allowing higher
densities does not immediately guarantee an increase
in the general housing supply or an increase in rental
housing. At a minimum, however, these reforms
are necessary because they provide opportunities
for higher-density housing to be built in order to
encourage a greater supply of housing and improve
aordability.
Local eorts to support housing development
are also necessary for increasing the aordable
housing supply. State and local government housing
programs, like housing trust funds and aordable
housing bonds, often fund development targeted
at renters with specic income levels or at special
populations (National Low Income Housing
Coalition, 2022b). Ideally, these programs would
direct resources to housing for renters with the
greatest needs – those with the lowest incomes. Both
zoning reforms and local housing supports, while
extremely important, are limited in their ability
to bolster aordable housing at scale, however,
due to the price and complexity of aordable
housing development. Most cities simply do not
have adequate resources of their own to develop
aordable housing at scale without state and federal
resources.
Absent public subsidy, private market development
typically targets the higher-priced end of the
housing market and, on its own, rarely produces
new rental housing aordable to the lowest-income
households. According to the Joint Center for
Housing Studies (2022b), the typical monthly
asking rent for new multifamily units was $1,740
in 2021. In comparison, the most a family of four
with an income below the poverty guideline in
the continental U.S. could aord in monthly rent
without experiencing a cost burden was $663
(National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2021).
New private-market development can, however,
result in a chain of household moves that benet
moderate and lower-income households through
ltering. eoretically, households with sucient
income move into the new housing, making
available their previous and older housing to other
households, who in turn leave behind even older
units, and so on. Eventually this process increases
the availability of the oldest (and lowest-cost) units
to low-income renters.
Filtering on its own, however, fails to provide an
adequate supply of housing for the lowest-income
renters. Even when ltering occurs as expected and
properties’ share of occupants with low incomes
increases with building age, the occupants are
typically housing cost-burdened (Myers & Park,
ABSENT PUBLIC SUBSIDY, PRIVATE MARKET
DEVELOPMENT TYPICALLY TARGETS THE
HIGHER-PRICED END OF THE HOUSING
MARKET AND, ON ITS OWN, RARELY PRODUCES
NEW RENTAL HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO THE
LOWEST-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
21
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
2020). Too often, the operating cost of maintaining
older housing is more than what extremely low-
income renters can aord to pay in rent. For
example, the average monthly operating cost for
rental units was $520 in 2019, yet the average
extremely low-income household could only aord
a monthly rent of $283 (Bailey, 2022). Before rents
in older housing become low enough for extremely
low-income households to aord, owners in weak
markets likely have an incentive to either abandon
their housing or convert their property to a dierent
use if regulations permit. In strong markets,
owners have an incentive to upgrade or rehabilitate
their units and rent them at higher prices. Given
these limitations, federal solutions are necessary
to meaningfully address the aordable housing
shortage for the lowest-income renters.
FEDERAL POLICY SOLUTIONS
TO REDUCE THE SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES
Eliminating the aordable housing shortage will
require a long-term federal commitment to investing
in new aordable housing, preserving aordable
rental homes that already exist, bridging the gap
between household incomes and rent through
universal rental assistance, providing emergency
assistance to stabilize renters when they experience
nancial shocks, and incentivizing reductions in
zoning regulations that limit aordable housing
development. Reductions in federal appropriations
for critical housing assistance programs that serve
renters with extremely low incomes will only
exacerbate our aordable housing
crisis and push even more families
into housing instability and
homelessness.
Budget cuts not only exacerbate
the problem but can generate
negative long-term eects that
are dicult to reverse. Increases
to HUD’s appropriations in
recent years, for example, have
not entirely made up for the cuts
experienced by HUD during the
rst years of budget caps under
the “Budget Control Act of
2011” (BCA). Between scal year
(FY) 2011 and FY2017, HUD
experienced seven consecutive years
of real budget cuts after accounting
for ination (Figure 12). HUD’s
cumulative appropriations during
this time were $27 billion less than
if HUD’s annual appropriations
had remained at FY2010 levels,
adjusted only for ination. Even
with signicant increases in
REDUCTIONS IN FEDERAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR
CRITICAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
THAT SERVE RENTERS
WITH EXTREMELY LOW
INCOMES WILL ONLY
EXACERBATE OUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS AND PUSH EVEN
MORE FAMILIES INTO
HOUSING INSTABILITY
AND HOMELESSNESS.
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
22
HUD’s appropriations in recent years, HUD’s
cumulative appropriations since FY2010 are still
slightly lower than if annual appropriations had
remained at FY2010 levels.
To fully address the shortage of aordable rental
housing for renters with extremely low incomes,
Congress must increase funding for both preserving
the stock of existing aordable housing and
increasing the supply of deeply aordable units.
Proposed legislation like the “American Housing
and Economic Mobility Act” (“S.1368” in the
117
th
Congress) would address the shortage of
aordable rental homes for extremely low-income
renters through an investment of nearly $45 billion
annually in the national Housing Trust Fund. e
bill also includes resources to repair public housing,
build or rehabilitate housing in tribal and Native
Hawaiian communities, and create and preserve
aordable homes in rural areas.
Congress must also increase resources for rental
assistance through Housing Choice Vouchers or
a renters’ tax credit. While vouchers alone do not
increase the supply of housing, they help address
the shortage of aordable and available units for
extremely low-income renters by allowing them
to aord moderately priced units. e “Ending
Homelessness Act of 2021” (“H.R.4496” in
the 117
th
Congress), for example, proposed to
establish a universal voucher program that would
enable all eligible households to receive rental
assistance. e bipartisan “Family Stability and
Opportunity Vouchers Act” (“S.1991” in the 117
th
Congress) would create 500,000 housing vouchers
specically targeted to low-income families with
young children and provide mobility counseling
services to help families nd housing options in
neighborhoods of their choice.
FIGURE 12: ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CUMULATIVE LOSS
(IN BILLIONS) FOR KEY HUD HOUSING PROGRAMS RELATIVE TO FY 2010
-$35
-$25
-$15
-$5
$5
$15
$25
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Note: Adjusted for inflation. Key HUD housing programs include Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public
Housing Capital and Operating Funds, HOME, Section 202, and Section 811.
-$27.1
-$17.0
-$5.6
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
-3%
-8%
-14%
-8%
-9%
-6%
-6%
2%
1%
5%
11% 11% 11%
Cumulative Loss Relative to Constant FY
2010 Funding Levels
Annual Appropriation Relative to FY 2010
23
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
While long-term solutions are necessary to remedy
the persistent shortage of aordable and available
housing, short-term assistance is critical for lifting
up low-income households and protecting their
housing stability when they experience unexpected
nancial shocks. Economic precarity resulting from
the COVID-19 pandemic merely highlighted what
has long been known: the lowest-income families
are just one missed paycheck or unexpected expense
away from potential eviction or homelessness. e
U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Emergency
Rental Assistance program, which provided
$46.6 billion in emergency rental assistance for
households experiencing nancial distress during
the pandemic, provides a framework for what a
permanent version of this program could look
like (Aiken et al., 2022; National Low Income
Housing Coalition, 2022c). e “Eviction Crisis
Act” (“S.2182” in the 117
th
Congress) would help
establish a more permanent version of this program
by creating a national housing stabilization fund for
renters facing temporary nancial setbacks. Stopgap
funding for renters in need would help prevent
the many negative consequences associated with
evictions and homelessness, including mental stress,
loss of possessions, instability for children, and
increased diculty nding a new apartment.
Congress should enact federal renter protections
to address the power imbalance between landlords
and renters that puts renters at risk of housing
instability. ese protections include source-of-
income protections to prevent landlords from
discriminating against voucher holders, “just
cause” or “good cause” eviction standards, access
to legal counsel to put renters on more equal
legal footing with landlords, expungement of
eviction records, and limits on rent gouging.e
“Ending Homelessness Act of 2021” (“H.R.4496”
in the 117
th
Congress) and “Fair Housing
Improvement Act” (“S. 4485” and “H.R. 8213” in
the 117
th
Congress) would prohibit discrimination
based on source of income.Since 2021, state and
local governments have enacted or implemented
at least 172 renter protections; however, federal
legislation is needed to ensure renters in all
jurisdictions can benet from basic protections
(National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2023).
e federal government should also incentivize or
require local governments to eliminate restrictive
zoning rules that increase the cost of development
and limit housing supply for all renters. Bipartisan
legislation introduced in the previous Congress
included the “Yes in My Backyard Act” (“S.1614” in
the 117
th
Congress), or “YIMBY Act,” that would
require Community Development Block Grant
recipients to reduce barriers to aordable housing
development, including by enacting zoning reforms
that would allow for more multifamily housing
development.
CONCLUSION
Between 2019 and 2021, the pandemic’s negative
impact on employment and incomes, followed
by severe rent ination, worsened an aordable
housing crisis that was already acute. During this
period, the shortage of aordable and available
rental homes for renters with extremely low
incomes increased from 6.8 million to 7.3 million,
leaving the lowest-income renters with even fewer
places to turn. Despite an improving outlook
in early 2023, characterized by attening rental
ination and low unemployment, extremely low-
income renters will continue to struggle to nd
aordable homes.
Only sustained and signicant federal investments
in rental housing can ensure that the lowest-income
renters, who are disproportionately people of color,
have aordable homes. e new Congress must
recognize the urgent need for expanding our supply
of aordable rental housing, preserving the supply
that already exists, providing short-term assistance
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
24
when nancial crises hit vulnerable households, and
protecting the housing stability of tenants.
ABOUT THE DATA
is report is based on data from the 2021
American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use
Microdata Sample (PUMS). e ACS is an annual
nationwide survey of approximately 3.5 million
addresses. It provides timely data on the social,
economic, demographic, and housing characteristics
of the U.S. population. PUMS contains individual
ACS questionnaire records for a subsample of
housing units and their occupants.
PUMS data are available for geographic areas
called Public Use Microdata Sample Areas
(PUMAs). Individual PUMS records were matched
to their appropriate metropolitan area or given
nonmetropolitan status using the Missouri Census
Data Center’s MABLE/Geocorr 2018 Geographic
Correspondence Engine. If at least 50% of a PUMA
was in a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), we
assigned it to the CBSA. Otherwise, the PUMA
was given nonmetropolitan status.
Households were categorized by their incomes
(as extremely low-income, very low-income, low-
income, middle-income, or above median income)
relative to their metropolitan area’s median family
income or state’s nonmetropolitan median family
income, adjusted for household sizes. Housing units
were categorized according to the income needed to
aord rent and utilities without spending more than
30% of income on these costs. e categorization
of units was done without regard to the incomes of
the current tenants. Housing units without complete
kitchens or plumbing facilities were not included in
the housing supply.
After households and units were categorized,
we analyzed the extent to which households in
each income category resided in housing units
categorized as aordable for that income level.
For example, we estimated the number of units
aordable for extremely low-income households that
were occupied by extremely low-income households
and by other income groups.
We categorized households into mutually exclusive
household types in the following order: (1)
householder or householder’s spouse were at least
62 years of age (seniors); (2) householder and
householder’s spouse (if applicable) were younger
than 62 and at least one of them had a disability
(disabled); and (3) householder and householder’s
spouse (if applicable) were younger than 62 and
at least one of them was in the labor force; (4)
householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable)
were enrolled in school; and (5) non-senior non-
disabled single adult was living with a young child
under seven years of age or person with disability.
More information about the ACS PUMS les is
available at https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/microdata/documentation.html
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For further information regarding this report, please
contact NLIHC Senior Vice President for Research
Andrew Aurand at [email protected] or 202-662-
1530 x245.
REFERENCES
Aiken, C., Harner, I., Reina, V., Aurand, A., &
Yae, R. (2022). Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA)
during the pandemic: Implications for the design of
permanent ERA programs. National Low Income
Housing Coalition and Housing Initiative at
Penn. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/les/HIP_
NLIHC_2022_3-10_FINAL.pdf
25
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
Airgood-Obrycki, W., Hermann, A., & Weeden,
S. (2022). “e rent eats rst”: Rental housing
unaordability in the United States. Housing Policy
Debate. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.20
20866
Apartment List. (2022). National-level historic
estimates (2017-present) [Data set]. Apartment List.
https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/category/
data-rent-estimates
Arnon, A., He, Z., & Sun, X. (2022). Did wages
keep up with ination in 2021? (2022). University
of Pennsylvania, Penn Wharton Budget Model.
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/
issues/2022/2/21/did-wages-keep-up-with-
ination-in-2021
Badger, E. & Bui., Q. (2019). Cities Start to
Question an American Ideal: A House with a
Yard on Every Lot. https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-
america-question-single-family-zoning.html
Bailey, P. (2022). Addressing the aordable housing
crisis requires expanding rental assistance and adding
housing units. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/
addressing-the-aordable-housing-crisis-requires-
expanding-rental-assistance-and
Bartlett, R. P., Morse, A., Stanton, R., & Wallace, N.
(2019). Consumer-lending discrimination in the ntech
era. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://
www.nber.org/papers/w25943
Bateman, N. & Ross, M. (2021). e pandemic hurt
low-wage workers the most – and so far, the recovery
has helped them the least. Brookings Institute. https://
www.brookings.edu/research/the-pandemic-hurt-
low-wage-workers-the-most-and-so-far-the-
recovery-has-helped-them-the-least/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023a). Consumer Price
Index (CPI) Databases: All Urban Consumers (Current
Series). U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.
gov/cpi/data.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023b). Labor force
characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2021. U.S.
Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/opub/
reports/race-and-ethnicity/2021/home.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023c) Unemployment
Rate [UNRATE]. Retrieved from FRED, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.
org/series/UNRATE, February 4, 2023.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023d). Real Earnings
Summary. U.S. Department of Labor, January 12,
2023.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2022). e
COVID-19 Economy’s Eects on Food, Housing, and
Employment Hardships. COVID Hardship Watch.
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/les/8-13-20pov.
pdf
Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.
(2018). Final report: Fair housing testing project for
the Chicago Commission on Human Relations. https://
www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cchr/
supp_info/FairHousingReportAUG2018.pdf
Choi, A., Herbert, K., Winslow, O., & Browne, A.
(2019, November). Long Island divided. Newsday.
https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-
estate-agents-investigation/#openpaywall-message
Coates, T. (2014, June). e case for reparations. e
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/
archive/2014/06/the-case-forreparations/361631/
Gyourko, J., Hartley, J., & Krimmel, J. (2019). e
local residential land use regulatory environment across
U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton
Index. National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/01/Working-Paper-2020.pdf
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
26
Hermann, A. (2020). e continuing decline of low-
cost rentals. Joint Center for Housing Studies of
Harvard University. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/
blog/the-continuing-decline-of-low-cost-rentals
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University. (2022a). America’s rental housing 2022.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/les/
reports/les/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_
Housing_2022.pdf
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University. (2022b). State of the nation’s housing
2022. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/
les/reports/les/Harvard_JCHS_State_Nations_
Housing_2022.pdf
Landis, J. & Reina, V. (2021). Do restrictive land
use regulations make housing more expensive
everywhere? Economic Development Quarterly, (35)4.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424211043500
Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development. (2022). State public
housing programs: Local housing unit counts by program
listing. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/state-
public-housing-programs
Massey, D. S. & Denton, N. A. (1993). American
apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
Harvard University Press.
Myers, D. & Park, J. (2020). Filtering of apartment
housing between 1980 and 2018. National
Multifamily Housing Council. https://www.nmhc.
org/globalassets/research--insight/research-reports/
ltering-data/nmhc-research-foundation-ltering-
2020-nal.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2021).
Out of Reach 2021. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
les/oor/2021/Out-of-Reach_2021.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2022a).
Out of Reach 2022. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
les/2022_OOR.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
(2022b). Advocates’ guide ’22: A primer on federal
aordable housing & community development
programs & policies. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
les/2022-03/2022_Advocates-Guide.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2022c).
Emergency Rental Assistance: A blueprint for a
permanent program. https://nlihc.org/resource/nlihc-
releases-blueprint-permanent-emergency-rental-
assistance-program
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2023).
ERASE State and Local Tenant Protections
Database. https://nlihc.org/tenant-protections
Retrieved on February 27, 2023.
Pendall, R. (2000). Local land use regulation and
the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American
Planning Association, (66)2, 125-142. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944360008976094
Resseger, M. (2022). e impact of land use
regulation on racial segregation: Evidence from
Massachusetts zoning borders. Mercatus Research
Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4244120
Rice, L. & Swesnik, D. (2012). Discriminatory eects
of credit scoring on communities of color. National
Fair Housing Alliance. https://nationalfairhousing.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NFHA-credit-
scoring-paper-for-Suolk-NCLC-symposium-
submitted-to-Suolk-Law.pdf
Richard, M., Dworkin, J., Rule, K.G., Farooqui, S.,
Glendening, Z., & Carlson, S. (2022). Quantifying
doubled-up homelessness: Presenting a new measure
using U.S. Census microdata. Housing Policy Debate.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1981976
Rothstein, R. (2017). e color of law: A forgotten
history of how our government segregated America.
Liveright.
27
NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
THE GAP A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES, 2023
Schuetz, J. (2009). No renters in my suburban
backyard: Land use regulation and rental housing.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, (28)2,
296-320. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20428
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2019 American
Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample
[Data set].
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022a). 2021 American
Community Survey 1-Year Subject Tables [Data set].
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022b). 2021 American
Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample
[Data set].
U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Rental Vacancy Rate in
the United States. Retrieved from FRED, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.
org/series/RRVRUSQ156N, February 6, 2023.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2022). Ocial
USDA rifty Food Plan: U.S. Average, November
2022. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/
les/media/le/CostofFoodNov2022rifty.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. (2013). Housing discrimination
against racial and ethnic minorities 2012. https://
www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/fairhsg/hsg_
discrimination_2012.html
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. (2022). e 2022 Annual Homelessness
Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1: Point-
in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. https://www.
huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/les/pdf/2022-
AHAR-Part-1.pdf
Wilson, V., Miller, E., & Kassa, M. (2021). Racial
representation in professional occupations. Economic
Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/
racial-representation-prof-occ/
APPENDIX A: STATE COMPARISONS
States in RED have less than the national level of affordable and available units per 100 households at or below
the extremely low-income (ELI) threshold.
Surplus (Decit) of Affordable
and Available Units
Affordable and Available Units per 100
Households at or below Threshold
% Within Each Income Category with
Severe Housing Cost Burden
State At or below ELI
At or below 50%
AMI
At or
below ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or below
80% AMI
At or below
100% AMI
At or
below ELI
> ELI to 50%
AMI
51% to 80%
AMI
81% to 100%
AMI
Alabama (86,362) (70,765) 49 72 103 107 70% 26% 4% 1%
Alaska
(13,273)
(12,381)
35
63 94 103 69% 32% 5% 0%
Arizona (136,282)
(188,943)
24
40 86 100 80% 44% 11% 1%
Arkansas (53,551) (40,996) 47 73 104 105 68% 26% 3% 1%
California (998,510)
(1,450,924)
24
32 66 85 78% 51% 16% 5%
Colorado (124,989)
(164,529)
26
44 91 102 78% 38% 6% 2%
Connecticut (89,013) (91,257) 37 61 96 101 68% 26% 3% 2%
Delaware (21,197)
(18,973)
27
58 97 101 77% 36% 8% 0%
District of Columbia (32,990) (26,624) 40 65 94 102 73% 21% 7% 0%
Florida (443,892)
(650,305)
23
33 71 92 83% 56% 19% 4%
Georgia (213,289) (246,173) 34 53 97 105 77% 38% 7% 1%
Hawaii (27,014) (37,372) 34 44 74 89 70% 52% 19% 9%
Idaho (24,710) (22,358) 38 67 95 100 66% 25% 5% 1%
Illinois (293,354) (247,767) 34 65 98 102 73% 26% 5% 2%
Indiana (120,796) (78,123) 39 76 103 105 70% 18% 2% 1%
Iowa (57,191) (20,210) 40 88 104 104 65% 14% 2% 1%
Kansas (55,383) (43,550) 40 73 103 104 71% 21% 2% 1%
Kentucky (89,375) (69,399) 46 72 102 104 67% 16% 2% 0%
Louisiana (113,468) (115,629) 39 57 97 105 71% 31% 6% 1%
Maine (22,498) (22,319) 49 68 98 101 52% 26% 4% 8%
Maryland (146,085)
(149,564)
30
56 98 103 75% 29% 4% 1%
Massachusetts (175,367) (190,737) 44 60 91 98 64% 31% 6% 2%
Michigan (191,717) (175,469) 36 64 99 102 72% 26% 4% 2%
Minnesota (103,626) (80,913) 38 71 103 104 66% 20% 3% 1%
Mississippi (52,421) (55,167) 51 63 100 105 69% 35% 5% 0%
Missouri (114,609) (70,294) 44 79 103 104 69% 15% 2% 1%
Montana (15,741) (6,894) 45 87 98 103 65% 13% 5% 2%
Nebraska (40,621) (22,292) 38 80 102 102 66% 16% 2% 3%
Nevada (83,994)
(118,993)
17
30 74 95 86% 51% 15% 2%
New Hampshire (20,358) (19,483) 38 67 101 103 62% 22% 3% 0%
New Jersey (224,531)
(297,635)
31
43 87 97 74% 38% 7% 1%
New Mexico (43,226) (47,573) 36 53 95 101 73% 27% 8% 2%
New York (655,940)
(712,820) 32 52 82 94 73% 36% 11% 4%
North Carolina (207,837) (192,122) 39 65 100 106
72% 32% 6% 1%
North Dakota (12,780) 4,017 50 108 119 116 73% 15% 0% 0%
Ohio (270,399) (146,747) 40 79 101 103 68% 17% 2% 1%
Oklahoma (81,638) (67,548) 39 68 101 104 70% 21% 4% 2%
Oregon (109,682)
(139,178)
23
39 87 98 80% 47% 6% 1%
Pennsylvania (267,074) (220,371) 38 69 98 102 69% 24% 5% 1%
Rhode Island (24,049) (23,704) 53 70 96 103 60% 23% 6% 3%
South Carolina (91,333) (90,539) 42 62 100 106 74% 30% 5% 0%
South Dakota (10,269) (4,831) 58 89 104 103 61% 7% 1% 4%
Tennessee (129,343) (131,946) 41 63 96 103 69% 29% 8% 1%
Texas (674,648)
(864,338)
25
44 95 104 79% 36% 5% 1%
Utah (43,623) (51,952) 33 57 96 102 73% 25% 4% 1%
Vermont (14,147) (15,100) 35 55 90 98 73% 33% 7% 2%
Virginia (174,187)
(192,239) 32 55 99 104 78% 33% 4% 1%
Washington (174,821)
(220,225)
28
46 92 100 75% 32% 6% 2%
West Virginia (29,072) (21,213) 50 75 105 108 66% 27% 6% 0%
Wisconsin
(126,726)
(60,219)
35
81 101 103 69% 17% 3% 1%
Wyoming (10,215) (4,627) 41 86 108 107 64% 19% 1% 1%
USA Totals (7,337,216) (8,009,313) 33 55 90 99 73% 34% 8% 2%
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN COMPARISONS
Metropolitan Areas in RED have less than the national level of affordable and available units per 100 households
at or below the extremely low-income threshold
Surplus (Decit)
of Affordable and
Available Units
Affordable and Available Units
per 100 Households at or below
Threshold
% Within Each Income Category
with Severe Housing Cost Burden
Metro Area
At or below
ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or
below ELI
At or below
50% AMI
At or below
80% AMI
At or below
100% AMI
At or
below ELI
31% to
50% AMI
51% to
80% AMI
81% to
100% AMI
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA (121,163)
(157,482)
25
44 94 104 82% 45% 7% 1%
Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX (70,364)
(87,953)
16
42 97 101 87% 30% 4% 1%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD (67,217)
(70,480)
31
56 96 102 74% 33% 6% 1%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (122,820) (139,874) 44 57 89 98 64% 33% 8% 3%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY (33,942) (18,941) 34 76 97 99 69% 20% 3% 1%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC (49,395)
(44,000)
32
64 101 108 78% 32% 7% 1%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (234,668)
(227,215)
28
58 96 102 76% 31% 6% 2%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN (54,415) (25,736) 38 82 101 102 66% 15% 3% 1%
Cleveland-Elyria, OH (56,663) (34,526) 38 75 98 101 69% 19% 2% 1%
Columbus, OH (51,479)
(39,631)
30
68 100 104 76% 26% 4% 0%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (182,184)
(256,485)
16
37 94 105 85% 37% 5% 1%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (71,515)
(100,832)
23
38 92 103 81% 38% 4% 2%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI (95,995)
(88,746)
31
60 96 101 73% 28% 4% 1%
Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown, CT (31,719) (27,813) 35 64 99 104 71% 28% 2% 2%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (174,827)
(231,780)
19
40 95 106 82% 37% 6% 2%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN (39,004)
(29,197)
32
71 100 102 71% 19% 2% 2%
Jacksonville, FL (35,956)
(43,235)
21
42 84 102 83% 47% 9% 1%
Kansas City, MO-KS (42,772) (33,169) 39 74 101 104 73% 19% 2% 2%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (67,338)
(98,486)
14
24 68 93 89% 58% 18% 2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA (392,156)
(627,606)
20
24 53 76 82% 59% 23% 8%
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN (27,798) (26,821) 35 63 102 105 70% 18% 2% 0%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR (34,951)
(39,452)
28
46 88 99 82% 50% 10% 3%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL (143,528)
(236,232)
22
22 48 76 82% 68% 29% 5%
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI (46,420)
(23,671)
28
78 100 103 72% 24% 4% 1%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (71,491) (63,113) 36 67 103 104 65% 23% 3% 1%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN (40,389) (46,461) 33 56 96 104 70% 34% 10% 2%
New Orleans-Metairie, LA (40,087)
(47,431)
27
41 92 102 80% 37% 8% 1%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA (653,160)
(824,689)
31
43 78 93 74% 41% 12% 4%
Oklahoma City, OK (35,052)
(26,944)
30
68 102 106 76% 24% 6% 3%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL (55,860)
(92,108)
15
21 64 96 89% 65% 19% 0%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
(162,931)
(153,794)
29
58 96 101 74% 31% 6% 1%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ (87,234)
(132,321)
19
35 82 99 82% 49% 12% 1%
Pittsburgh, PA (44,754) (28,433) 48 80 100 103 61% 16% 2% 1%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
(68,217)
(89,475)
22
38 88 99 79% 43% 7% 1%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA (41,828) (37,010) 48 70 96 102 61% 22% 4% 2%
Raleigh-Cary, NC (34,025)
(23,567)
29
70 112 112 74% 26% 3% 1%
Richmond, VA (33,236)
(31,809)
27
59 99 103 80% 35% 3% 0%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (79,084)
(113,707)
20
33 65 84 81% 52% 18% 4%
Rochester, NY (31,215)
(21,330)
27
68 99 102 75% 27% 5% 1%
Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA (62,300)
(80,954)
27
40 81 96 77% 44% 7% 1%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX (51,831) (77,618) 33 41 98 107 74% 40% 5% 0%
San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA (82,893)
(132,524)
19
24 61 85 83% 64% 19% 2%
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA (124,089) (155,017) 34 46 82 95 69% 42% 10% 2%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (44,093)
(54,630)
30
46 90 102 69% 31% 7% 1%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (102,187)
(135,833)
25
41 92 101 78% 35% 6% 1%
St. Louis, MO-IL
(57,338) (29,132) 37 81 102 103 70% 16% 2% 3%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (71,786)
(97,846)
21
36 83 98 83% 51% 13% 5%
Tucson, AZ (26,085)
(29,703)
24
50 98 103 81% 32% 7% 0%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC (43,311)
(57,328)
25
43 93 102 81% 39% 7% 1%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
(148,945)
(167,417)
27
49 99 104 78% 29% 4% 1%
USA Totals (7,337,216)
(8,009,313)
33 55 90 99 73% 34% 8% 2%
Source: 2021 ACS PUMS
The National Low Income Housing Coalition
1000 Vermont Avenue, NW • Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-1530 • https://nlihc.org
© 2023 National Low Income Housing Coalition
NLIHC STAFF
Lilly Amechi Policy Intern
Andrew Aurand Senior Vice President for Research
Sidney Betancourt Housing Advocacy Organizer
Victoria Bourret ERASE Senior Project Coordinator
Jen Butler Vice President of Media Relations
and Communications
Alayna Calabro Senior Policy Analyst
Matthew Clarke Writer/Editor
Courtney Cooperman Housing Advocacy Organizer
Bairy Diakite Director of Operations
Lindsay Duvall Senior Organizer for Housing
Advocacy
Dan Emmanuel Senior Research Analyst
David Foster Field Intern
Ed Gramlich Senior Advisor
Sarah Gallagher Senior Director, ERASE Project
Jordan Goldstein Communications/Graphic Design
Intern
Juliet Hayes Research Intern
Danita Humphries Senior Executive Assistant
Nada Hussein ERASE Project Coordinator
Kendra Johnson Chief Operating Ofcer
Kim Johnson Public Policy Manager
Mike Koprowski OSAH Campaign Director
Kayla Laywell Housing Policy Analyst
Mayerline Louis-Juste Senior Communications Specialist
Khulud Mohammed Communications/Graphic Design
Intern
Steve Moore Sanchez Development Coordinator
Neetu Nair Research Analyst
Khara Norris Senior Director of Administration
Noah Patton Senior Housing Policy Analyst
Mackenzie Pish Research Analyst
Ikra Ra Creative Services Manager
Benja Reilly Development Specialist
Gabrielle Ross Housing Advocacy Organizer
Sarah Saadian Senior Vice President for Public
Policy and Field Organizing
Brooke Schipporeit Manager of Field Organizing
Sophie Siebach-Glover Research Analyst
Lauren Steimle Web/Graphic Design Specialist
Leslie Villegas ERASE Intern
Chantelle Wilkinson OSAH Campaign Manager
Renee Willis Senior Vice President for Racial
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Rebecca Yae Senior Research Analyst
Diane Yentel President and CEO
NLIHC BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Dora Leong Gallo, Chair | Los Angeles, CA
Eric Price, First Vice Chair | Washington, DC
Nan Roman, Second Vice Chair | Washington, DC
Moises Loza, Treasurer | Alexandria, VA
Aaron Gornstein, Secretary | Boston, MA
Russell “Rusty” Bennett, At-Large | Birmingham, AL
Shalonda Rivers, At-Large | Opa Locka, FL
Cathy Alderman | Denver, CO
Dara Baldwin | Washington, DC
Andrew Bradley | Indianapolis, IN
Staci Berger | Trenton, NJ
Loraine Brown | New York, NY
Geraldine Collins | New York, NY
Lisa J. D’Souza | St. Louis, MO
Colleen Echohawk | Seattle, WA
Bambie Hayes-Brown | Atlanta, GA
Zella Knight | Los Angeles, CA
Anne Mavity | St. Paul, MN
Kathryn Monet | Washington, D.C.
Chrishelle Palay | Houston, TX
Hasson Rashid | Cambridge, MA
Megan Sandel | Boston, MA
Marie Claire Tran-Leung | Redondo Beach, CA
Sharon Vogel | Eagle Butte, SD
Mindy Woods | Edmonds, WA
A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES
