West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

The average for 2021 based on 20 countries was 97.17 index points. The highest value was in Bermuda: 212.7 index points and the lowest value was in Nicaragua: 49.42 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The average for 2021 based on 11 countries was 67.5 index points. The highest value was in Uruguay: 100.24 index points and the lowest value was in Suriname: 43.15 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

As of mid-2024, Montevideo ranked as the second Latin American and Caribbean metropolis with the highest cost of living index. The Uruguayan capital obtained an index score of ****, only second to Port of Spain, in Trinidad and Tobago, with **** points. Monterrey and Panama City were the third and fourth most expensive cities to live in Latin America and the Caribbean that year, with scores surpassing ** points each.

Of the most populous cities in the U.S., San Jose, California had the highest annual income requirement at ******* U.S. dollars annually for homeowners to have an affordable and comfortable life in 2024. This can be compared to Houston, Texas, where homeowners needed an annual income of ****** U.S. dollars in 2024.

This map shows housing costs as a percentage of household income. Severe housing cost burden is described as when over 50% of income in a household is spent on housing costs. For renters it is over 50% of household income going towards gross rent (contract rent plus tenant-paid utilities). Miami, Florida accounts for the having the highest population of renters with severe housing burden costs.The map's topic is shown by tract and county centroids. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Income is based on earnings in past 12 months of survey. Current Vintage: 2015-2019ACS Table(s): B25070, B25091Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 10, 2020National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis map can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

The housing affordability measure illustrates the relationship between income and housing costs. A household that spends 30% or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to be “housing cost-burden[ed].”[1] Those spending between 30% and 49.9% of their monthly income are categorized as “moderately housing cost-burden[ed],” while those spending more than 50% are categorized as “severely housing cost-burden[ed].”[2]

How much a household spends on housing costs affects the household’s overall financial situation. More money spent on housing leaves less in the household budget for other needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, as well as for incidental purchases and saving for the future.

The estimated housing costs as a percentage of household income are categorized by tenure: all households, those that own their housing unit, and those that rent their housing unit.

Throughout the period of analysis, the percentage of housing cost-burdened renter households in Champaign County was higher than the percentage of housing cost-burdened homeowner households in Champaign County. All three categories saw year-to-year fluctuations between 2005 and 2023, and none of the three show a consistent trend. However, all three categories were estimated to have a lower percentage of housing cost-burdened households in 2023 than in 2005.

Data on estimated housing costs as a percentage of monthly income was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Housing Tenure.

[1] Schwarz, M. and E. Watson. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (22 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (30 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).;U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; 16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census http://www.nhgis.org (1980-1990) http://factfinder2.census.gov (2000)

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form C17002 (2006-2017) http://api.census.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. Poverty rates do not include unrelated individuals below 15 years old or people who live in the following: institutionalized group quarters, college dormitories, military barracks, and situations without conventional housing. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year data was used for region, county, and metro areas whereas 5-year rolling average data was used for city and census tract.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

Graph and download economic data for Average Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States (ASPUS) from Q1 1963 to Q1 2025 about sales, housing, and USA.

In December 2024, 11 percent of survey respondents said that the most important problem facing the United States was the high cost of living and inflation. Another 20percent said that the government and poor leadership was the most serious concern for the nation.

This table contains data on the living wage and the percent of families with incomes below the living wage for California, its counties, regions and cities/towns. Living wage is the wage needed to cover basic family expenses (basic needs budget) plus all relevant taxes; it does not include publicly provided income or housing assistance. The percent of families below the living wage was calculated using data from the Living Wage Calculator and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. The living wage is the wage or annual income that covers the cost of the bare necessities of life for a worker and his/her family. These necessities include housing, transportation, food, childcare, health care, and payment of taxes. Low income populations and non-white race/ethnic have disproportionately lower wages, poorer housing, and higher levels of food insecurity. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Graph and download economic data for Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States (MSPUS) from Q1 1963 to Q1 2025 about sales, median, housing, and USA.

According to a recent study, Colombia had the lowest monthly cost of living in Latin America with 546 U.S. dollars needed for basic living. In contrast, four countries had a cost of living above one thousand dollars, Costa Rica, Chile, Panama and Uruguay. In 2022, the highest minimum wage in the region was recorded by Ecuador with 425 dollars per month.

Can Latin Americans survive on a minimum wage? Even if most countries in Latin America have instated laws to guarantee citizens a basic income, these minimum standards are often not enough to meet household needs. For instance, it was estimated that almost 22 million people in Mexico lacked basic housing services. Salary levels also vary greatly among Latin American economies. In 2022, the average net monthly salary in Brazil was lower than Ecuador's minimum wage.

What can a minimum wage afford in Latin America? Latin American real wages have generally risen in the past decade. However, consumers in this region still struggle to afford non-basic goods, such as tech products. Recent estimates reveal that, in order to buy an iPhone, Brazilian residents would have to work more than two months to be able to pay for it. A gaming console, on the other hand, could easily cost a Latin American worker several minimum wages.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program's Building America (BA) team conducted a case study of a high-performance affordable housing community: The Woods (Figure 1). This BA effort is part of a larger-scale study of 30 homes funded from 2013-2016 by Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) and the Bonneville Power Administration. The Woods is a Habitat for Humanity (HFH) community of homes certified by ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest (ESHNW); the community is in the marine climate of Tacoma/Pierce County, Washington. This research report builds on an earlier preliminary draft 2014 BA report and includes significant billing analysis and cost-effectiveness research from a collaborative and ongoing DHP research effort for TPU and the Bonneville Power Administration. This final BA report focuses on the results of field testing, modeling, and monitoring of ductless mini-split heat pump hybrid heating systems in seven homes built and first occupied at various times between September 2013 and October 2014. The report also provides WSU documentation of high-performance home observations, lessons learned, and stakeholder recommendations for builders of affordable high-performance housing. The research goal of the U.S. Department of Energy's BA research team Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction was to compare a ductless heat pump (DHP) hybrid system (DHP in common area/electric resistance [ER] in bedrooms) to an all-electric zonal ER system in high-performance single-family affordable housing. This effort included assessing the costs and benefits of a DHP/ER hybrid system located in the main living area to offset the primary heating demand of zonal ER heaters in the bedroom zones and comparing these findings to data from of new affordable single-family housing in Washington State. This report includes: (1) Measured indoor and outdoor temperatures and relative humidity (RH) in the homes. (2) Field testing results of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment; ventilation system airflows; building envelope tightness; lighting, appliance, and other input data required for preliminary Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) modeling; and ENERGY STAR field verification (3) BEopt modeling results compared to measured energy use. (4) A comparison of the space heat energy consumption of a DHP/ER hybrid heating system and a traditional zonal ER heating system installed in the same home. This comparison is made by implementing a series of weekly "flip-flop tests" (referred to here as "switchback" tests per TPU) to compare space heating, temperature, and RH in zonal ER heating mode with a DHP/ER mode as discussed in the Building America Test Plan (Lubliner 2010a). (5) Cost data from HFH and other sources related to building efficiency measures focusing on the DHP/ER hybrid heating system. (6) An evaluation of the thermal performance and cost benefit of DHP/ER hybrid heating systems in these high-performance homes employing life cycle cost analysis for energy code policy and monthly cash flow analysis of HFH homeowners. (7) Post-monitoring occupant survey results. The report also provides the following stakeholder findings and recommendations: (1) DHP single-head systems at The Woods are cost-effective to new homebuyers of these high-performance all-electric homes. (2) Stakeholder education is needed on design, inspection, and commissioning; documentation is needed for heat recovery ventilation (HRV) and from ENERGY STAR builders, verifiers, and inspectors to help ensure that the houses meet the goal of "build tight, ventilate right." (3) A code gap in inspection and enforcement was identified that should be addressed by: (3a) Improving the fire marshal's approach to sprinkler attic piping freeze protection; (3b) Improving the maintenance of ceiling insulation continuity; and (3c) Educating the local building inspector on attic insulation inspection concerns that allow for maximizing design improvements and performance of HRV attic ducting while ensuring ceiling insulation continuity (with respect to the location of HRV) in compliance with the Washington State Energy Code. 1 - The Woods Jameson - Tacoma, WA 2 - The Woods El Jeffe - Tacoma, WA

This table contains data on the percent of households paying more than 30% (or 50%) of monthly household income towards housing costs for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consolidated Planning Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). The table is part of a series of indicators in the [Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity] Affordable, quality housing is central to health, conferring protection from the environment and supporting family life. Housing costs—typically the largest, single expense in a family's budget—also impact decisions that affect health. As housing consumes larger proportions of household income, families have less income for nutrition, health care, transportation, education, etc. Severe cost burdens may induce poverty—which is associated with developmental and behavioral problems in children and accelerated cognitive and physical decline in adults. Low-income families and minority communities are disproportionately affected by the lack of affordable, quality housing. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Attachments.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR
Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME
The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED
January 2023

DESCRIPTION
Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE
U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census - http://www.nhgis.org
1980-2000

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey - https://data.census.gov/
2007-2021
Form C17002

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps).

For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: US Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.

American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data is used for larger geographies – Bay counties and most metropolitan area counties – while smaller geographies rely upon 5-year rolling average data due to their smaller sample sizes. Note that 2020 data uses the 5-year estimates because the ACS did not collect 1-year data for 2020.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

Manufactured Housing Market Outlook

The global manufactured housing market size was valued at approximately USD 30 billion in 2023, and it is projected to reach an estimated USD 45 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.7% during the forecast period. The growth of the manufactured housing market can be attributed to the rising demand for affordable housing solutions worldwide, driven by increasing urbanization and population growth, along with technological advancements in manufacturing processes that enhance the quality and design of prefabricated homes.

One of the primary growth drivers for the manufactured housing market is the affordability factor. In a world where housing prices are steadily climbing, manufactured homes offer a cost-effective alternative without compromising on quality and comfort. As more people seek economical housing solutions, particularly in regions where real estate costs are prohibitively high, the demand for manufactured homes is expected to rise. Furthermore, manufactured homes provide flexibility in terms of location and customization, which appeals to a broad demographic, including millennials and retirees who are looking for both cost savings and modern conveniences.

Another significant growth factor is the evolution of construction technologies and materials used in manufactured housing. Advances in materials science and engineering have led to the development of new, durable, and sustainable building materials. These materials not only improve the longevity and resilience of manufactured homes but also enhance their energy efficiency, making them more environmentally friendly. This shift towards sustainable living is further fueled by government incentives and policies advocating for green building practices, making manufactured homes an attractive option for eco-conscious consumers.

The changing regulatory landscape also plays a crucial role in the growth of the manufactured housing market. Governments across various regions are recognizing the importance of manufactured housing in addressing housing shortages and are implementing supportive regulations to facilitate their development. For instance, zoning laws are being updated to accommodate manufactured homes in more areas, and financial products such as favorable loan conditions are being tailored to support buyers of manufactured housing. These regulatory changes are instrumental in legitimizing and expanding the market, offering new opportunities for both consumers and manufacturers.

Regionally, North America is a key market for manufactured housing, driven by the high demand for affordable housing solutions in the United States. The Asia Pacific region is expected to witness significant growth due to rapid urbanization and population growth in countries such as China and India. Europe presents opportunities for market expansion, supported by increasing interest in sustainable living solutions. However, the market faces challenges in the Middle East & Africa, where cultural and climatic conditions may limit the adoption of manufactured housing. Despite these challenges, the overall regional outlook for manufactured housing remains positive, fueled by global trends towards affordable and sustainable housing solutions.

Type Analysis

The manufactured housing market is segmented into single-section and multi-section types, each offering unique benefits that cater to different consumer needs. Single-section manufactured homes are typically smaller and more affordable, making them an ideal choice for individuals or small families seeking cost-effective housing solutions. These homes are often chosen by first-time homebuyers and retirees who prioritize affordability and simplicity. The compact design of single-section homes allows for easy transportation and installation, which further reduces costs and time associated with home setup. Their popularity is especially notable in regions where land prices are high, and consumers look for budget-friendly housing options without compromising on essential amenities.

On the other hand, multi-section manufactured homes offer more space and customization options, appealing to larger families or those seeking more luxurious living arrangements. These homes can be configured to include multiple bedrooms, spacious living areas, and additional features such as porches or garages. The flexibility in design and layout makes multi-section homes attractive to consumers who wish to personalize their homes to suit individual preferences and lifestyle needs. As consumer expectations for home quality and aesthetics

This data collection is part of the American Housing Metropolitan Survey (AHS-MS, or "metro") which is conducted in odd-numbered years. It cycles through a set of 21 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. The metro survey, like the national survey, is longitudinal. This particular survey provides information on the characteristics of a New Orleans metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record. Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information. Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.