This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

HUD Income Limits are collected and published to determine the maximum income a household may earn to participate in certain housing subsidy programs. Home income limits from the year 2019 were used. Median income is developed for each metropolitan area (and applies to all counties in the metro area), and each non-metropolitan area (and is a county level measure). Data was obtained for communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. The calculations stem from median family income data provided by the Census and adjusted for certain local conditions.

This dataset represents the geospatial extent as polygons and the corresponding attribution for census block groups that meet the definition of low-income communities according to the Virginia 2020 Environmental Justice Act: “Low-income community” definition: “’Low-income community’ means any census block group in which 30 percent or more of the population is composed of people with low income.”

The referenced “low income” definition is also provided below: “Low income” definition: “’Low income’ means having an annual household income equal to or less than the greater of (i) an amount equal to 80 percent of the median income of the area in which the household is located, as reported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and (ii) 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.”

For source data: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1903For HUD income limits: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.htmlFor more information about this dataset, please contact egis@isd.lacounty.gov

This service identifies U.S. Census Block Groups in which 51% or more of the households earn less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that each CDBG funded activity must either principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet a community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet that need. With respect to activities that principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, at least 51 percent of the activity's beneficiaries must be low and moderate income.

California State Income Limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low-, extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties (required by Health and Safety Code Section 50093). These income limits apply to State and local affordable housing programs statutorily linked to HUD income limits and differ from income limits applicable to other specific federal, State, or local programs.

There is more to housing affordability than the rent or mortgage you pay. Transportation costs are the second-biggest budget item for most families, but it can be difficult for people to fully factor transportation costs into decisions about where to live and work. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) is a user-friendly source of standardized data at the neighborhood (census tract) level on combined housing and transportation costs to help consumers, policymakers, and developers make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and invest. Compare eight household profiles (see table below) —which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the impact of the built environment on affordability in a given location while holding household demographics constant.*$11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelinesThis layer is symbolized by the percentage of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the Median-Income Family profile, but the costs as a percentage of income for all household profiles are listed in the pop-up:Also available is a gallery of 8 web maps (one for each household profile) all symbolized the same way for easy comparison: Median-Income Family, Very Low-Income Individual, Working Individual, Single Professional, Retired Couple, Single-Parent Family, Moderate-Income Family, and Dual-Professional Family.An accompanying story map provides side-by-side comparisons and additional context.--Variables used in HUD's calculations include 24 measures such as people per household, average number of rooms per housing unit, monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent as well as utility and maintenance expenses), average number of cars per household, median commute distance, vehicle miles traveled per year, percent of trips taken on transit, street connectivity and walkability (measured by block density), and many more.To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.3) visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/. There you will find some background and an FAQ page, which includes the question:"Manhattan, San Francisco, and downtown Boston are some of the most expensive places to live in the country, yet the LAI shows them as affordable for the typical regional household. Why?" These areas have some of the lowest transportation costs in the country, which helps offset the high cost of housing. The area median income (AMI) in these regions is also high, so when costs are shown as a percent of income for the typical regional household these neighborhoods appear affordable; however, they are generally unaffordable to households earning less than the AMI.Date of Coverage: 2012-2016 Date Released: March 2019Date Downloaded from HUD Open Data: 4/18/19Further Documentation:LAI Version 3 Data and MethodologyLAI Version 3 Technical Documentation_**The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updates**

Title: Location Affordability Index - NMCDC Copy

Summary: This layer contains the Location Affordability Index from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - standardized household, housing, and transportation cost estimates by census tract for 8 household profiles.

Notes: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas.

Prepared by: dianaclavery_uo, copied by EMcRae_NMCDC

Source: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas. Check the source documentation or other details above for more information about data sources.

Feature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=447a461f048845979f30a2478b9e65bb

UID: 73

Data Requested: Family income spent on basic need

Method of Acquisition: Search for Location Affordability Index in the Living Atlas. Make a copy of most recent map available. To update this map, copy the most recent map available. In a new tab, open the AGOL Assistant Portal tool and use the functions in the portal to copy the new maps JSON, and paste it over the old map (this map with item id

Date Acquired: Map copied on May 10, 2022

Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 6

Tags: PENDING

This dataset contains multifamily affordable and market-rate housing sites (typically 5+ units) in the City of Detroit that have been built or rehabbed since 2015, or are currently under construction. Most sites are rental housing, though some are for sale. The data are collected from developers, other government departments and agencies, and proprietary data sources in order to track new multifamily and affordable housing construction and rehabilitation occurring in throughout the city, in service of the City's multifamily affordable housing goals. Data are compiled by various teams within the Housing and Revitalization Department (HRD), led by the Preservation Team. This dataset reflects HRD's current knowledge of multifamily units under construction in the city and will be updated as the department's knowledge changes. For more information about the City's multifamily affordable housing policies and goals, visit here.Affordability level for affordable units are measured by the percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) that a household could earn for that unit to be considered affordable for them. For example, a unit that rents at a 60% AMI threshold would be affordable to a household earning 60% or less of the median income for the area. Rent affordability is typically defined as housing costs consuming 30% or less of monthly income. Regulated housing programs are designed to serve households based on certain income benchmarks relative to AMI, and these income benchmarks vary based on household size. Detroit city's AMI levels are set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Fair Market Rent (FMR) area. For more information on AMI in Detroit, visit here.

Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research (HUD PD&R) and American Community Survey provided by the Urban Institute. This metric reports the share of low-income households at three income levels, low-income (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-income (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-income (below 30 percent of AMI), that spend more than half (>50%) of their household income on rent.

This map is made using content created and owned by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (Esri user HUD.Official.Content). The map uses their Low to Moderate Income Population by Tract layer, filtered for only census tracts in Monroe County, NY where at least 51% of households earn less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The map is centered on Rochester, NY, with the City of Rochester, NY border added for context. Users can zoom out to see the Revitalization Areas for the broader county region.The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that each CDBG funded activity must either principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet a community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet that need. With respect to activities that principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, at least 51 percent of the activity's beneficiaries must be low and moderate income. For CDBG, a person is considered to be of low income only if he or she is a member of a household whose income would qualify as "very low income" under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program. Generally, these Section 8 limits are based on 50% of area median. Similarly, CDBG moderate income relies on Section 8 "lower income" limits, which are generally tied to 80% of area median. These data are derived from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) and based on Census 2010 geography.Please refer to the Feature Layer for date of last update.Data Dictionary: DD_Low to Moderate Income Populations by Tract

The concept of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) was originally developed by scholars at the University of Minnesota to illustrate the flip side of the Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) metric used by HUD in the 2015 AFFH rule and to more fully tell the story of segregation in the United States. As stated in HCD's AFFH Guidance Memo, when analyzing patterns and trends of segregation and proposing policy approaches in the Housing Element, localities should not only focus on communities of color. Segregation is a continuum, with polarity between race, poverty, and affluence, which can be a direct product of the same policies and practices. To better evaluate these conditions, both sides of the continuum should be considered and compare patterns within the community and across the region. This more holistic approach will better unveil deeply rooted policies and practices and improve identification and prioritization of contributing factors to inform more meaningful actions.HCD has created a new version of the RCAA metric to better reflect California's relative diversity and regional conditions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis of racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304. HCD's RCAA metric is provided as a resource to be paired with local data and knowledge - jurisdictions are encouraged but not required to use the RCAA layer provided by HCD in their housing element analyses.To develop the RCAA layer, staff first calculated a Location Quotient (LQ) for each California census tract using data from the 2015-2019 ACS. This LQ represents the percentage of total white population (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) for each census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for all census tracts in a given COG region. For example, a census tract with a LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total white population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region.To determine the RCAAs, census tracts with a LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or 1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower) were assigned a numeric score of 1 (Is a RCAA). Census tracts that did not meet this criterion were assigned a score of 0 (Not a RCAA).COG AMI was determined by averaging the 2019 ACS established AMI's for each county within the given COG region. 2019 ACS AMI limits can be found here: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 [census.gov]. State AMI was based on the ACS 2019 California state AMI ($75,235), which can be found here: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/INC110219 [census.gov].Census tracts with a total population of less than 75 people, in which the census tract was also largely contained within a non-urbanized area such as a park, open space, or airport, were not identified as RCAAs.Data Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019References:Wilson, William J. (1980). The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Damiano, T., Hicks, J., & Goetz, E. (2017). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.To learn more about R/ECAPs visit: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf [huduser.gov]Original data created by HCD, PlaceWorks 2021