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 from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS). To learn more about the Low to Moderate Income Populations visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Low to Moderate Income Populations by Block GroupDate of Coverage: ACS 2020-2016

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.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States today. The LIHTC database, created by HUD and available to the public since 1997, contains information on 48,672 projects and 3.23 million housing units placed in service since 1987. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tracts must have 50 percent of households with incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI) or have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. Difficult Development Areas (DDA) are areas with high land, construction and utility costs relative to the area median income and are based on Fair Market Rents, income limits, the 2010 census counts, and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data.

Text source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/HOME-Income-limits.htmlLanding page description:HOME Income Limits data are available from FY 1998 to the present. The HOME Income Limits are calculated using the same methodology that HUD uses for calculating the income limits for the Section 8 program, in accordance with Section 3(b)(2) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended. These limits are based on HUD estimates of median family income, with adjustments based on family size. Please note that the 30 percent income limits for the HOME program have been calculated based on the definition of Extremely Low–Income Family (ELI) as described in Consolidated Submission for CPD Programs section of 24 CFR part 91.5. Therefore, the ELI Limit is calculated as 30 percent of median family income for the area and may not be the same as the Section 8 ELI Limit for your jurisdiction. The Section 8 Limit is calculated based on the definition of ELI as described in The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, (Section 238 on page 128 Stat 635) which defines ELI as very low–income families whose incomes do not exceed the higher of the Federal poverty level or 30% of area median income. Family sizes in excess of 8 persons are calculated by adding 8% of the four-person income limit for each additional family member. That is, a 9-person limit should be 140% of the 4-person limit, the 10-person limit should be 148%.The HOME income limit values for large households (9-12 persons) must be rounded to the nearest $50. Therefore, all values from 1 to 24 are rounded down to 0, and all values from 25 to 49 are rounded up to 50.Note: The FY 2024 HOME Income Limits effective date is June 01, 2024.

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.

To learn more about the Low to Moderate Income Populations visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Low to Moderate Income Populations by Tract

Between April 2008 and March 2024, households from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were the most likely to live in low income out of all ethnic groups, before and after housing costs.

Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019(1). The model uses machine learning to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP defines displacement risk as a census tract with characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households are leaving these neighborhoods than moving in.This map is a conservative estimate of low-income loss and should be considered a tool to help identify housing vulnerability. Displacement may occur because of either investment, disinvestment, or disaster-driven forces. Because this risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, UDP does not recommend that the tool be used to assess vulnerability to investment such as new housing construction or infrastructure improvements. HCD recommends combining this map with on-the-ground accounts of displacement, as well as other related data such as overcrowding, cost burden, and income diversity to achieve a full understanding of displacement risk.If you see a tract or area that does not seem right, please fill out this form to help UDP ground-truth the method and improve their model.How should I read the displacement map layers?The AFFH Data Viewer includes three separate displacement layers that were generated by the EDR model. The “50-80% AMI” layer shows the level of displacement risk for low-income (LI) households specifically. Since UDP has reason to believe that the data may not accurately capture extremely low-income (ELI) households due to the difficulty in counting this population, UDP combined ELI and very low-income (VLI) household predictions into one group—the “0-50% AMI” layer—by opting for the more “extreme” displacement scenario (e.g., if a tract was categorized as “Elevated” for VLI households but “Extreme” for ELI households, UDP assigned the tract to the “Extreme” category for the 0-50% layer). For these two layers, tracts are assigned to one of the following categories, with darker red colors representing higher displacement risk and lighter orange colors representing less risk:• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).• Lower Displacement Risk: the model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries. • At Risk of Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population. The “Overall Displacement” layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. For example, in the dark red tracts (“2 income groups”), the model estimates displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for both of the two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”. Light yellow tracts in the “Overall Displacement” layer are not experiencing UDP’s definition of displacement according to the model. Some of these yellow tracts may be majority low-income experiencing small to significant growth in this population while in other cases they may be high-income and exclusive (and therefore have few low-income residents to begin with). One major limitation to the model is that the migration data UDP uses likely does not capture some vulnerable populations, such as undocumented households. This means that some yellow tracts may be experiencing high rates of displacement among these types of households. MethodologyThe EDR is a first-of-its-kind model that uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP first joined household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) with tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by California Housing and Community Development; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.UDP then used a machine learning model to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP modeled displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate renter households income categories: extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income (VLI), and low-income (LI). These households have incomes between 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), 30-50% AMI, and 50-80% AMI, respectively. Tracts that have a predicted net loss within these groups are considered to experience displacement in three degrees: elevated, high, and extreme. UDP also includes a “At Risk of Displacement” category in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.What are the main limitations of this map?1. Because the map uses 2019 data, it does not reflect more recent trends. The pandemic, which started in 2020, has exacerbated income inequality and increased housing costs, meaning that UDP’s map likely underestimates current displacement risk throughout the state.2. The model examines displacement risk for renters only, and does not account for the fact that many homeowners are also facing housing and gentrification pressures. As a result, the map generally only highlights areas with relatively high renter populations, and neighborhoods with higher homeownership rates that are known to be experiencing gentrification and displacement are not as prominent as one might expect.3. The model does not incorporate data on new housing construction or infrastructure projects. The map therefore does not capture the potential impacts of these developments on displacement risk; it only accounts for other characteristics such as demographics and some features of the built environment. Two of UDP’s other studies—on new housing construction and green infrastructure—explore the relationships between these factors and displacement.Variable ImportanceFigures 1, 2, and 3 show the most important variables for each of the three models—ELI, VLI, and LI. The horizontal bars show the importance of each variable in predicting displacement for the respective group. All three models share a similar order of variable importance with median rent, percent non-white, rent gap (i.e., rental market pressure calculated using the difference between nearby and local rents), percent renters, percent high-income households, and percent of low-income households driving much of the displacement estimation. Other important variables include building types as well as economic and socio-demographic characteristics. For a full list of the variables included in the final models, ranked by descending order of importance, and their definitions see all three tabs of this spreadsheet. “Importance” is defined in two ways: 1. % Inclusion: The average proportion of times this variable was included in the model’s decision tree as the most important or driving factor.2. MeanRank: The average rank of importance for each variable across the numerous model runs where higher numbers mean higher ranking. Figures 1 through 3 below show each of the model variable rankings ordered by importance. The red lines represent Jenks Breaks, which are designed to sort values into their most “natural” clusters. Variable importance for each model shows a substantial drop-off after about 10 variables, meaning a relatively small number of variables account for a large amount of the predictive power in UDP’s displacement model.Figure 1. Variable Importance for Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Figure 2. Variable Importance for Very Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet. Figure 3. Variable Importance for Extremely Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2022). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA: Urban Displacement Project.(1) UDP used this time-frame because (a) the 2020 census had a large non-response rate and it implemented a new statistical modification that obscures and misrepresents racial and economic characteristics at the census tract level and (b) pandemic mobility trends are still in flux and UDP believes 2019 is more representative of “normal” or non-pandemic displacement trends.

Analysis of ‘CT Qualified Census Tracts’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/2109deb6-e5d4-4ce8-a4db-49f64db79930 on 27 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset provides access to Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) in Connecticut to assist in administration of American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds.

The Secretary of HUD must designate QCTs, which are areas where either 50 percent or more of the households have an income less than 60 percent of the AMGI for such year or have a poverty rate of at least 25 percent.

HUD designates QCTs based on new income and poverty data released in the American Community Survey (ACS). Specifically, HUD relies on the most recent three sets of ACS data to ensure that anomalous estimates, due to sampling, do not affect the QCT status of tracts.

QCTs are identified for the purpose of Low-Income Housing Credits under IRC Section 42, with the purpose of increasing the availability of low-income rental housing by providing an income tax credit to certain owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income rental housing projects.

Also included are the number of households from the 2010 census (the “p0150001” variable), the average poverty rate using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “pov_rate_18” variable), and the ratio of Tract Average Household Size Adjusted Income Limit to Tract Median Household Income using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “inc_factor_18” variable). For the last variable mentioned in the previous paragraph, the income limit is the limit for being considered a very low income household (size-adjusted and based on Area Mean Gross Income). This value is divided by the median household income for the given tract, to get a sense of how the limit and median incomes compare. For example, if ratio>1, it implies that the tract is very low income because the limit income is greater than the median income. This ratio is a compact way to include the separate variables for the household income limit and median household income for each tract.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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.

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.

Between 2018 and 2022, people in households in the ‘other’, Asian and black ethnic groups were the most likely to be in persistent low income, both before and after housing costs, out of all ethnic groups.

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 from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS).To learn more about the Low to Moderate Income Populations visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ Data Dictionary: DD_Low to Moderate Income Populations by Block Group Date of Coverage: ACS 2016-2020 Data Updated: Every Five Years

This dataset provides access to Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) in Connecticut to assist in administration of American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds. The Secretary of HUD must designate QCTs, which are areas where either 50 percent or more of the households have an income less than 60 percent of the AMGI for such year or have a poverty rate of at least 25 percent. HUD designates QCTs based on new income and poverty data released in the American Community Survey (ACS). Specifically, HUD relies on the most recent three sets of ACS data to ensure that anomalous estimates, due to sampling, do not affect the QCT status of tracts. QCTs are identified for the purpose of Low-Income Housing Credits under IRC Section 42, with the purpose of increasing the availability of low-income rental housing by providing an income tax credit to certain owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income rental housing projects. Also included are the number of households from the 2010 census (the “p0150001” variable), the average poverty rate using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “pov_rate_18” variable), and the ratio of Tract Average Household Size Adjusted Income Limit to Tract Median Household Income using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “inc_factor_18” variable). For the last variable mentioned in the previous paragraph, the income limit is the limit for being considered a very low income household (size-adjusted and based on Area Mean Gross Income). This value is divided by the median household income for the given tract, to get a sense of how the limit and median incomes compare. For example, if ratio>1, it implies that the tract is very low income because the limit income is greater than the median income. This ratio is a compact way to include the separate variables for the household income limit and median household income for each tract.

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.

This statistic shows the availability of affordable housing units per 100 extremely low income renter households in the United States in 2017, by state. West Virginia had the second highest number of affordable housing units out of the whole country with ** available housing units per 100 ELI renter households.

A Qualified Census Tract (QCT) is any census tract (or equivalent geographic area defined by the Census Bureau) in which at least 50% of households have an income less than 60% of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). HUD has defined 60% of AMGI as 120% of HUD's Very Low Income Limits (VLILs), which are based on 50% of area median family income, adjusted for high cost and low income areas.

This layer shows census tracts that meet the following definitions: Census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted under Healthy and Safety Code section 50093 and/or Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 or Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative population burden scores or Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 or Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes.

In 2022, San Francisco had the highest median household income of cities ranking within the top 25 in terms of population, with a median household income in of 136,692 U.S. dollars. In that year, San Jose in California was ranked second, and Seattle, Washington third.

Following a fall after the great recession, median household income in the United States has been increasing in recent years. As of 2022, median household income by state was highest in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Utah, and Massachusetts. It was lowest in Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Families with an annual income of 25,000 and 49,999 U.S. dollars made up the largest income bracket in America, with about 25.26 million households.

Data on median household income can be compared to statistics on personal income in the U.S. released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal income rose to around 21.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022, the highest value recorded. Personal income is a measure of the total income received by persons from all sources, while median household income is “the amount with divides the income distribution into two equal groups,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Half of the population in question lives above median income and half lives below. Though total personal income has increased in recent years, this wealth is not distributed throughout the population. In practical terms, income of most households has decreased. One additional statistic illustrates this disparity: for the lowest quintile of workers, mean household income has remained more or less steady for the past decade at about 13 to 16 thousand constant U.S. dollars annually. Meanwhile, income for the top five percent of workers has actually risen from about 285,000 U.S. dollars in 1990 to about 499,900 U.S. dollars in 2020.

The dataset contains current data on low rent and Section 8 units in PHA's administered by HUD. The Section 8 Rental Voucher Program increases affordable housing choices for very low-income households by allowing families to choose privately owned rental housing. Through the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program, the administering housing authority issues a voucher to an income-qualified household, which then finds a unit to rent. If the unit meets the Section 8 quality standards, the PHA then pays the landlord the amount equal to the difference between 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income (or 10 percent of the gross income or the portion of welfare assistance designated for housing) and the PHA-determined payment standard for the area. The rent must be reasonable compared with similar unassisted units.

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