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.

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

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.

Portugal, Canada, and the United States were the countries with the highest house price to income ratio in 2024. In all three countries, the index exceeded 130 index points, while the average for all OECD countries stood at 116.2 index points. The index measures the development of housing affordability and is calculated by dividing nominal house price by nominal disposable income per head, with 2015 set as a base year when the index amounted to 100. An index value of 120, for example, would mean that house price growth has outpaced income growth by 20 percent since 2015. How have house prices worldwide changed since the COVID-19 pandemic? House prices started to rise gradually after the global financial crisis (2007–2008), but this trend accelerated with the pandemic. The countries with advanced economies, which usually have mature housing markets, experienced stronger growth than countries with emerging economies. Real house price growth (accounting for inflation) peaked in 2022 and has since lost some of the gain. Although, many countries experienced a decline in house prices, the global house price index shows that property prices in 2023 were still substantially higher than before COVID-19. Renting vs. buying In the past, house prices have grown faster than rents. However, the home affordability has been declining notably, with a direct impact on rental prices. As people struggle to buy a property of their own, they often turn to rental accommodation. This has resulted in a growing demand for rental apartments and soaring rental prices.

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.

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community based cross-age mentoring to reduce negative outcomes related to violence exposure/engagement and promote positive development among African-American and Latinx youth from multiple sites serving four low-income, high violence urban neighborhoods, using youth mentors from the same high-risk environment. The program was named by youth mentors, "Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth" (or SLIY henceforth). Cross-age peer mentoring programs promise to solve problems and ineffectiveness of other types of mentoring programs, but few have been systematically studied in high-poverty, high-crime communities. In collaboration with several community organizations, a prospective approach was implemented to follow cross-age mentors and mentees for up to one year of mentoring. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to examine possible changes in a number of relevant constructs, and to understand program impact in greater depth. Mentoring sessions lasting one hour took place each week, with an hour debriefing session for mentors following each mentoring session. Quantitative data were collected pre, post and at a 9-12 month follow-up. Throughout the mentoring intervention, several forms of qualitative data were gathered to make it possible for youth voices to permeate understanding findings, to illuminate program processes that youth perceived as helpful and not helpful, and to provide multiple perspectives on youths' resilience and their understanding of the risks they faced. Both mentors and community collaborators were trained and engaged as community researchers. School-based data were also collected. Demographic variables include participants' age, race, and grade in school.

Median household income is the middle value of the incomes earned in the prior year by households in an area. Income and earnings are inflation-adjusted for the last year of the 5-year period. The median value is used as opposed to the average so that both extremely high and extremely low prices do not distort the total amount of income earned by households in an area. Source: American Community SurveyYears Available: 2006-2010, 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-2013, 2010-2014, 2011-2015, 2012-2016, 2013-2017, 2014-2018, 2015-2019, 2016-2020, 2017-2021, 2018-2022, 2019-2023Please note: We do not recommend comparing overlapping years of data due to the nature of this dataset. For more information, please visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data.html

BackgroundChildren from families with low socioeconomic status (SES), as determined by income, experience several negative outcomes, such as higher rates of newborn mortality and behavioral issues. Moreover, associations between DNA methylation and low income or poverty status are evident beginning at birth, suggesting prenatal influences on offspring development. Recent evidence suggests neighborhood opportunities may protect against some of the health consequences of living in low income households. The goal of this study was to assess whether neighborhood opportunities moderate associations between household income (HI) and neonate developmental maturity as measured with DNA methylation.MethodsUmbilical cord blood DNA methylation data was available in 198 mother-neonate pairs from the larger CANDLE cohort. Gestational age acceleration was calculated using an epigenetic clock designed for neonates. Prenatal HI and neighborhood opportunities measured with the Childhood Opportunity Index (COI) were regressed on gestational age acceleration controlling for sex, race, and cellular composition.ResultsHigher HI was associated with higher gestational age acceleration (B = .145, t = 4.969, p = 1.56x10-6, 95% CI [.087, .202]). Contrary to expectation, an interaction emerged showing higher neighborhood educational opportunity was associated with lower gestational age acceleration at birth for neonates with mothers living in moderate to high HI (B = -.048, t = -2.08, p = .03, 95% CI [-.092, -.002]). Female neonates showed higher gestational age acceleration at birth compared to males. However, within males, being born into neighborhoods with higher social and economic opportunity was associated with higher gestational age acceleration.ConclusionPrenatal HI and neighborhood qualities may affect gestational age acceleration at birth. Therefore, policy makers should consider neighborhood qualities as one opportunity to mitigate prenatal developmental effects of HI.

The Los Angeles Index of Neighborhood Change is a tool that allows users to explore the extent to which Los Angeles Zip Codes have undergone demographic change from 2000 to 2014. Created in 2015/2016, the data comes from 2000, 2005, 2013, and 2014. Please read details about each measure for exact years.Index scores are an aggregate of six demographic measures indicative of gentrification. The measures are standardized and combined using weights that reflect the proportion of each measure that is statistically significant.Measure 1: Percent change in low/high IRS filer ratio. For the purposes of this measure, High Income = >$75K Adjust Gross Income tax filer and Low Income = <$25k filers who also received an earned income tax credit. Years Compared for Measure 1: 2005 and 2013 | Source: IRS Income Tax Return DataMeasure 2: Change in percent of residents 25 years or older with Bachelor's Degrees or HigherMeasure 3: Change in percent of White, non-Hispanic/Latino residentsMeasure 4: Percent change in median household income (2000 income is adjusted to 2014 dollars)Measure 5: % Change in median gross rent (2000 rent is adjusted to 2013/2014 dollars)Measure 6: Percent change in average household size Year Compared for Measures 2-5: 2000 and 2014, Measure 6: 2013Sources: Decennial Census, 2000 | American Community Survey (5-Year Estimate, 2009-2013; 2010; 2014)Date Updated: December 13, 2016Refresh Rate: Never - Historical data

Rapid urbanization has led to a growing sanitation crisis in urban areas of Bangladesh and potential exposure to fecal contamination in the urban environment due to inadequate sanitation and poor fecal sludge management. Limited data are available on environmental fecal contamination associated with different exposure pathways in urban Dhaka. We conducted a cross-sectional study to explore the magnitude of fecal contamination in the environment in low-income, high-income, and transient/floating neighborhoods in urban Dhaka. Ten samples were collected from each of 10 environmental compartments in 10 different neighborhoods (4 low-income, 4 high-income and 2 transient/floating neighborhoods). These 1,000 samples were analyzed with the IDEXX-Quanti-Tray technique to determine most-probable-number (MPN) of E. coli. Samples of open drains (6.91 log10 MPN/100 mL), surface water (5.28 log10 MPN/100 mL), floodwater (4.60 log10 MPN/100 mL), produce (3.19 log10 MPN/serving), soil (2.29 log10 MPN/gram), and street food (1.79 log10 MPN/gram) had the highest mean log10 E. coli contamination compared to other samples. The contamination concentrations did not differ between low-income and high-income neighborhoods for shared latrine swabs, open drains, municipal water, produce, and street foodsamples. E. coli contamination levels were significantly higher (p

Housing-Burdened Low-Income Households. Percent of households in a census tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs). (5-year estimates, 2013-2017).

The cost and availability of housing is an important determinant of well- being. Households with lower incomes may spend a larger proportion of their income on housing. The inability of households to afford necessary non-housing goods after paying for shelter is known as housing-induced poverty. California has very high housing costs relative to much of the country, making it difficult for many to afford adequate housing. Within California, the cost of living varies significantly and is largely dependent on housing cost, availability, and demand.

Areas where low-income households may be stressed by high housing costs can be identified through the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. We measure households earning less than 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income by county and paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs. The indicator takes into account the regional cost of living for both homeowners and renters, and factors in the cost of utilities. CHAS data are calculated from US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS).

The rental housing developments listed below are among the thousands of affordable units that are supported by City of Chicago programs to maintain affordability in local neighborhoods. The list is updated periodically when construction is completed for new projects or when the compliance period for older projects expire, typically after 30 years. The list is provided as a courtesy to the public. It does not include every City-assisted affordable housing unit that may be available for rent, nor does it include the hundreds of thousands of naturally occurring affordable housing units located throughout Chicago without City subsidies. For information on rents, income requirements and availability for the projects listed, contact each property directly. For information on other affordable rental properties in Chicago and Illinois, call (877) 428-8844, or visit www.ILHousingSearch.org.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for High Point, NC, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Pittsburgh, PA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 10,439, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 252,110. This indicates that the top earners earn 24 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 462,513, which is 183.46% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 4430.63% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Pittsburgh median household income. You can refer the same here

In this paper, we begin by documenting substantial variation in house-price growth across neighborhoods within a city during citywide housing price booms. We then present a model which links house-price movements across neighborhoods within a city and the gentrification of those neighborhoods in response to a citywide housing-demand shock. A key ingredient in our model is a positive neighborhood externality: individuals like to live next to richer neighbors. This generates an equilibrium where households segregate based upon their income. In response to a citywide demand shock, higher-income residents will choose to expand their housing by migrating into the poorer neighborhoods that directly abut the initial richer neighborhoods. The in-migration of the richer residents into these border neighborhoods will bid up prices in those neighborhoods, causing the original poorer residents to migrate out. We refer to this process as “endogenous gentrification.” Using a variety of data sets and using Bartik variation across cities to identify city-level housing demand shocks, we find strong empirical support for the model’s predictions.

In this paper, we begin by documenting substantial variation in house-price growth across neighborhoods within a city during citywide housing price booms. We then present a model which links house-price movements across neighborhoods within a city and the gentrification of those neighborhoods in response to a citywide housing-demand shock. A key ingredient in our model is a positive neighborhood externality: individuals like to live next to richer neighbors. This generates an equilibrium where households segregate based upon their income. In response to a citywide demand shock, higher-income residents will choose to expand their housing by migrating into the poorer neighborhoods that directly abut the initial richer neighborhoods. The in-migration of the richer residents into these border neighborhoods will bid up prices in those neighborhoods, causing the original poorer residents to migrate out. We refer to this process as endogenous gentrification. Using a variety of data sets and using Bartik variation across cities to identify city-level housing demand shocks, we find strong empirical support for the model’s predictions.

Housing burden is defined as spending 30% or more of monthly household income on housing. A small number of households without housing cost or income data were excluded from analyses.Given the high cost of housing in Los Angeles County, many residents spend a sizable portion of their incomes on housing every month and are therefore susceptible to significant housing burden. Housing burden disproportionately affects low-income individuals, renters, and communities of color. Housing burden can negatively impact health by forcing individuals and families into low quality or unsafe housing, by causing significant stress, and by limiting the amount of money people have available to spend on other life necessities, such as food or healthcare. It is also an important risk factor for homelessness.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

A dataset comprising various variables around housing and demographics for the top 50 American cities by population.

Variables:

Zip Code: Zip code within which the listing is present.

Price: Listed price for the property.

Beds: Number of beds mentioned in the listing.

Baths: Number of baths mentioned in the listing.

Living Space: The total size of the living space, in square feet, mentioned in the listing.

Address: Street address of the listing.

City: City name where the listing is located.

State: State name where the listing is located.

Zip Code Population: The estimated number of individuals within the zip code. Data from Simplemaps.com.

Zip Code Density: The estimated number of individuals per square mile within the zip code. Data from Simplemaps.com.

County: County where the listing is located.

Median Household income: Estimated median household income. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Latitude: Latitude of the zip code. ** Data from Simplemaps.com.**

Longitude: Longitude of the zip code. Data from Simplemaps.com.

Colombia Consumer Price Index (CPI): High Income: Spending on Housing Services Occupied by Their Owners data was reported at 100.250 Dec2018=100 in Jan 2019. Colombia Consumer Price Index (CPI): High Income: Spending on Housing Services Occupied by Their Owners data is updated monthly, averaging 100.250 Dec2018=100 from Jan 2019 (Median) to Jan 2019, with 1 observations. Colombia Consumer Price Index (CPI): High Income: Spending on Housing Services Occupied by Their Owners data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Statistics Administrative Department. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Colombia – Table CO.I013: Consumer Price Index: COICOP: Dec2018=100: by Class of Good and Services.

A Difficult Development Area (DDA) for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program is an area designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with high construction, land, and utility costs relative to its Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). All designated DDAs in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) or Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSA) may not contain more than 20% of the aggregate population of all MSAs/PMSAs, and all designated areas not in metropolitan areas may not contain more than 20% of the aggregate population of the non-metropolitan counties.