United States US: Price to Income Ratio: sa data was reported at 130.087 2015=100 in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 128.571 2015=100 for 2023. United States US: Price to Income Ratio: sa data is updated yearly, averaging 113.539 2015=100 from Dec 1970 (Median) to 2024, with 55 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 132.929 2015=100 in 1979 and a record low of 90.287 2015=100 in 2012. United States US: Price to Income Ratio: sa data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.OECD.AHPI: House Price Index: Seasonally Adjusted: OECD Member: Annual. Nominal house prices divided by nominal disposable income per head. Net household disposable income is used. The population data come from the OECD national accounts database.

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).

The average sales price of new homes in the United States experienced a slight decrease in 2024, dropping to 512,2000 U.S. dollars from the peak of 521,500 U.S. dollars in 2022. This decline came after years of substantial price increases, with the average price surpassing 400,000 U.S. dollars for the first time in 2021. The recent cooling in the housing market reflects broader economic trends and changing consumer sentiment towards homeownership. Factors influencing home prices and affordability The rapid rise in home prices over the past few years has been driven by several factors, including historically low mortgage rates and increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the market has since slowed down, with the number of home sales declining by over two million between 2021 and 2023. This decline can be attributed to rising mortgage rates and decreased affordability. The Housing Affordability Index hit a record low of 98.1 in 2023, indicating that the median-income family could no longer afford a median-priced home. Future outlook for the housing market Despite the recent cooling, experts forecast a potential recovery in the coming years. The Freddie Mac House Price Index showed a growth of 6.5 percent in 2023, which is still above the long-term average of 4.4 percent since 1990. However, homebuyer sentiment remains low across all age groups, with people aged 45 to 64 expressing the most pessimistic outlook. The median sales price of existing homes is expected to increase slightly until 2025, suggesting that affordability challenges may persist in the near future.

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).

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.

This layer shows housing costs as a percentage of household income. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. 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. This layer is symbolized to show the percent of renter households that spend 30.0% or more of their household income on gross rent (contract rent plus tenant-paid utilities). To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B25070, B25091 Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer 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. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. 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, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). 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 erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. 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 Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List is published annually on or about February 1. The data for the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List comes from different sources including federal, state and local programs. This makes it difficult to ensure complete accuracy, so DOH asks municipalities to provide a local administrative review of and input on the street addresses of units and projects as well as information on deed-restricted units. The responses received by DOH vary widely from each municipality. In developing the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List, DOH counts: -Assisted housing units or housing receiving financial assistance under any governmental program for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing that was occupied or under construction by the end date of the report period for compilation of a given year’s list; -Rental housing occupied by persons receiving rental assistance under C.G.S. Chapter 138a (State Rental Assistance/RAP) or Section 142f of Title 42 of the U.S. Code (Section 8); -Ownership housing or housing currently financed by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority and/or the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and -Deed-restricted properties or properties with deeds containing covenants or restrictions that require such dwelling unit(s) be sold or rented at or below prices that will preserve the unit(s) as affordable housing as defined in C.G.S. Section 8-39a for persons or families whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% of the area median income.

The dataset is a catalog of major residential development projects in Somerset County, NJ. This includes Affordable Housing, Senior housing options, and Market-rate rentalsAffordable Housing Options: With New Jersey having some of the highest housing costs in the county, the state government has implemented several initiatives and programs to provide housing options for low- and moderate-income eligible households. In addition, several municipalities have implemented inclusionary zoning laws, that require property developers to allocate a certain percentage of the units for affordable housing. Somerset county has several affordable housing programs to help low-and moderate-income eligible households and first-time homebuyers, including the Mt. Laurel Doctrine, New Jersey Balanced Housing Program, HUD Public Housing Program, HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8). This dataset provides a comprehensive list of all affordable housing projects in the county. The dataset includes ‘inclusionary’ developments that are comprised of both market-rate units and affordable units. It also includes municipality-sponsored and other 100% affordable housing projects, as well as affordable housing created through the redevelopment process. The total number of market rate and affordable housing units in each project is provided. Some projects include a blend of both rental and for-purchase units. Senior Housing Options: There are several housing options in Somerset County for older adults seeking assistance with daily living or those who want to maintain their independence or those who seek to live in communities designed for older adults. These options include – Active Adult Communities: These are communities designed for older adults who can live independently but want to live in a community specifically for older adults. They typically offer amenities such as fitness centers, swimming pools, and social activities. Many independent living communities also offer additional services such as transportation, housekeeping, and meals. Assisted Living Communities: These communities aid with daily living activities such as bathing, dressing, and medication management. They offer a range of services, depending on the level of care needed. Some assisted living communities also offer memory care services for individuals with dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Continuing Care Retirement Communities: These communities offer a continuum of care that includes independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. This allows residents to "age in place" and receive additional care as needed without having to move to a different community. Senior Residence: These communities are restricted to residents who are 55 years of age or older. They typically offer amenities like active adult communities and may have additional features such as golf courses, community centers, and events. Market Rate Rentals: These properties are typically owned/operated by private landlords and are not considered affordable housing and are not subject to government subsidies. These include apartments, condominiums, town homes, single-family homes. The information included in this dataset represents a point-in-time (November 2023) and is subject to change. Furthermore, new, or alternative housing projects may be proposed in future years, which will be incorporated into subsequent dataset updates. Updates to this dataset will take place on an as-needed basis.

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.

LOW TRANSPORTATION COST INDEXSummaryThe Low Transportation Cost Index is based on estimates of transportation expenses for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. CBSA). The estimates come from the Location Affordability Index (LAI). The data correspond to those for household type 6 (hh_type6_) as noted in the LAI data dictionary. More specifically, among this household type, we model transportation costs as a percent of income for renters (t_rent). Neighborhoods are defined as census tracts. The LAI data do not contain transportation cost information for Puerto Rico.InterpretationValues are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the transportation cost index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. Transportation costs may be low for a range of reasons, including greater access to public transportation and the density of homes, services, and jobs in the neighborhood and surrounding community.

Data Source: Location Affordability Index (LAI) data, 2012-2016.Related AFFH-T Local Government, PHA and State Tables/Maps: Table 12; Map 11.

References: www.locationaffordability.infohttps://lai.locationaffordability.info//lai_data_dictionary.pdf

To learn more about the Low Transportation Cost Index visit: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh ; https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Date of Coverage: 07/2020

Analysis of ‘Affordable Housing by Town 2011-2020’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/12fb0759-dd5d-4701-a95d-3a7365723c24 on 27 January 2022.

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

The Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List is published annually on or about February 1. The data for the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List comes from different sources including federal, state and local programs. This makes it difficult to ensure complete accuracy, so DOH asks municipalities to provide a local administrative review of and input on the street addresses of units and projects as well as information on deed-restricted units. The responses received by DOH vary widely from each municipality.

In developing the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List, DOH counts:

-Assisted housing units or housing receiving financial assistance under any governmental program for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing that was occupied or under construction by the end date of the report period for compilation of a given year’s list; -Rental housing occupied by persons receiving rental assistance under C.G.S. Chapter 138a (State Rental Assistance/RAP) or Section 142f of Title 42 of the U.S. Code (Section 8); -Ownership housing or housing currently financed by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority and/or the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and -Deed-restricted properties or properties with deeds containing covenants or restrictions that require such dwelling unit(s) be sold or rented at or below prices that will preserve the unit(s) as affordable housing as defined in C.G.S. Section 8-39a for persons or families whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% of the area median income.

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

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.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment" by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/newmto/. A summary of the related publication follows. There are large differences in individuals’ economic, health, and educational outcomes across neighborhoods in the United States. Motivated by these disparities, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designed the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment to determine whether providing low-income families assistance in moving to better neighborhoods could improve their economic and health outcomes. The MTO experiment was conducted between 1994 and 1998 in five large U.S. cities. Approximately 4,600 families living in high-poverty public housing projects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an experimental voucher group that was offered a subsidized housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a census tract with a poverty rate below 10%, a Section 8 voucher group that was offered a standard housing voucher with no additional contingencies, and a control group that was not offered a voucher (but retained access to public housing). Previous research on the MTO experiment has found that moving to lower-poverty areas greatly improved the mental and physical health of adults. However, prior work found no impacts of the MTO treatments on the earnings of adults and older youth, leading some to conclude that neighborhood environments are not an important component of economic success. In this study, we present a new analysis of the effect of the MTO experiment on children’s long-term outcomes. Our re-analysis is motivated by new research showing that a neighborhood’s effect on children’s outcomes may depend critically on the duration of exposure to that environment. In particular, Chetty and Hendren (2015) use quasi-experimental methods to show that every year spent in a better area during childhood increases a child’s earnings in adulthood, implying that the gains from moving to a better area are larger for children who are younger at the time of the move. In light of this new evidence on childhood exposure effects, we study the long-term impacts of MTO on children who were young when their families moved to better neighborhoods. Prior work has not been able to examine these issues because the younger children in the MTO experiment are only now old enough to be entering the adult labor market. For older children (those between ages 13-18), we find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has a statistically insignificant or slightly negative effect. More generally, the gains from moving to lower-poverty areas decline steadily with the age of the child at the time of the move. We do not find any clear evidence of a “critical age” below which children must move to benefit from a better neighborhood. Rather, every extra year of childhood spent in a low-poverty environment appears to be beneficial, consistent with the findings of Chetty and Hendren (2015). The MTO treatments also had little or no impact on adults’ economic outcomes, consistent with previous results. Together, these studies show that childhood exposure plays a critical role in neighborhoods’ effects on economic outcomes. The experimental voucher increased the earnings of children who moved at young ages in all five experimental sites, for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and for boys and girls. Perhaps most notably, we find robust evidence that the experimental voucher improved long-term outcomes for young boys, a subgroup where prior studies have found little evidence of gains. Our estimates imply that moving a child out of public housing to a low-poverty area when young (at age 8 on average) using a subsidized voucher like the MTO experimental voucher will increase the child’s total lifetime earnings by about $302,000. This is equivalent to a gain of $99,000 per child moved in present value at age 8, discounting future earnings at a 3% interest rate. The additional tax revenue generated from these earnings increases would itself offset the incremental cost of the subsidized voucher relative to providing public housing. We conclude that offering low-income families housing vouchers and assistance in moving to lowerpoverty neighborhoods has substantial benefits for the families themselves and for taxpayers. It appears important to target such housing vouchers to families with young children – perhaps even at birth – to maximize the benefits. Our results provide less support for policies that seek to improve the economic outcomes of adults through residential relocation. More broadly, our findings suggest that efforts to integrate disadvantaged families into mixed-income communities are likely to reduce the persistence of poverty across generations. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Internal Revenue Service or the U.S. Treasury Department. This work is a component of a larger project examining the effects of tax expenditures on the budget deficit and economic activity. All results based on tax data in this paper are constructed using statistics originally reported in the SOI Working Paper “The Economic Impacts of Tax Expenditures: Evidence from Spatial Variation across the U.S.,” approved under IRS contract TIRNO-12-P-00374 and presented at the Office of Tax Analysis on November 3, 2014. MTO participant data are highly confidential. HUD allowed the authors special access to the experimental data under Data License DL14MA001, approved March 28, 2014.

This longitudinal survey was designed to add significantly to the amount of detailed information available on the economic situation of households and persons in the United States. These data examine the level of economic well-being of the population and also provide information on how economic situations relate to the demographic and social characteristics of individuals. There are three basic elements contained in the survey. The first is a control card that records basic social and demographic characteristics for each person in a household, as well as changes in such characteristics over the course of the interviewing period. The second element is the core portion of the questionnaire, with questions repeated at each interview on labor force activity, types and amounts of income, participation in various cash and noncash benefit programs, attendance in postsecondary schools, private health insurance coverage, public or subsidized rental housing, low-income energy assistance, and school breakfast and lunch participation. The third element consists of topical modules which are series of supplemental questions asked during selected household visits. No topical modules were created for the first or second waves. The Wave III Rectangular Core and Topical Module File offers both the core data and additional data on (1) education and work history and (2) health and disability. In the areas of education and work history, data are supplied on the highest level of schooling attained, courses or programs studied in high school and after high school, whether the respondent received job training, and if so, for how long and under what program (e.g., CETA or WIN). Other items pertain to the respondent's general job history and include a description of selected previous jobs, duration of jobs, and reasons for periods spent not working. Health and disability variables present information on the general condition of the respondent's health, functional limitations, work disability, and the need for personal assistance. Data are also provided on hospital stays or periods of illness, health facilities used, and whether health insurance plans (private or Medicare) were available. Respondents whose children had physical, mental, or emotional problems were questioned about the causes of the problems and whether the children attended regular schools. The Wave IV Rectangular Core and Topical Module file contains both the core data and sets of questions exploring the subjects of (1) assets and liabilities, (2) retirement and pension coverage, and (3) housing costs, conditions, and energy usage. Some of the major assets for which data are provided are savings accounts, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, Keogh and IRA accounts, home equity, life insurance, rental property, and motor vehicles. Data on unsecured liabilities such as loans, credit cards, and medical bills also are included. Retirement and pension information covers such items as when respondents expect to stop working, whether they will receive retirement benefits, whether their employers have retirement plans, if so whether they are eligible, and how much they expect to receive per year from these plans. In the category of housing costs, conditions, and energy usage, variables pertain to mortgage payments, real estate taxes, fire insurance, principal owed, when the mortgage was obtained, interest rates, rent, type of fuel used, heating facilities, appliances, and vehicles. The Wave V topical modules explore the subject areas of (1) child care, (2) welfare history and child support, (3) reasons for not working/reservation wage, and (4) support for nonhousehold members/work-related expenses. Data on child care include items on child care arrangements such as who provides the care, the number of hours of care per week, where the care is provided, and the cost. Questions in the areas of welfare history and child support focus on receipt of aid from specific welfare programs and child support agreements and their fulfillment. The reasons for not working/reservation wage module presents data on why persons are not in the labor force and the conditions under which they might join the labor force. Additional variables cover job search activities, pay rate required, and reason for refusal of a job offer. The set of questions dealing with nonhousehold members/work-related expenses contains items on regular support payments for nonhousehold members and expenses associated with a job such as union dues, licenses, permits, special tools, uniforms, or travel expenses. Information is supplied in the Wave VII Topical Module file on (1) assets and liabilities, (2) pension plan coverage, and (3) real estate property and vehicles. Variables pertaining to assets and liabilities are similar to those contained in the topical module for Wave IV. Pension plan coverage items include whether the respondent will receive retirement benefits, whether the employer offers a retirement plan and if the respondent is included in the plan, and contributions by the employer and the employee to the plan. Real estate property and vehicles data include information on mortgages held, amount of principal still owed and current interest rate on mortgages, rental and vacation properties owned, and various items pertaining to vehicles belonging to the household. Wave VIII Topical Module includes questions on support for nonhousehold members, work-related expenses, marital history, migration history, fertility history, and household relationships. Support for nonhousehold members includes data for children and adults not in the household. Weekly and annual work-related expenses are documented. Widowhood, divorce, separation, and marriage dates are part of the marital history. Birth expectations as well as dates of birth for all the householder's children, in the household or elsewhere, are recorded in the fertility history. Migration history data supplies information on birth history of the householder's parents, number of times moved, and moving expenses. Household relationships lists the exact relationships among persons living in the household. Part 49, Wave IX Rectangular Core and Topical Module Research File, includes data on annual income, retirement accounts, taxes, school enrollment, and financing. This topical module research file has not been edited nor imputed, but has been topcoded or bottomcoded and recoded if necessary by the Census Bureau to avoid disclosure of individual respondents' identities. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08317.v2. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.

Since passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the federal government has provided housing assistance to low-income renters. Most of these housing subsidies were provided under programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or predecessor agencies. All programs covered in this report provide subsidies that reduce rents for low-income tenants who meet program eligibility requirements. Generally, households pay rent equal to 30 percent of their incomes, after deductions, while the federal government pays the remainder of rent or rental costs. To qualify for a subsidy, an applicant’s income must initially fall below a certain income limit. These income limits are HUD-determined, location specific, and vary by household size. Applicants for housing assistance are usually placed on a waiting list until a subsidized unit becomes available.Assistance provided under HUD programs falls into three categories: public housing, tenant-based, and privately owned, project-based.In public housing, local housing agencies receive allocations of HUD funding to build, operate or make improvements to housing. The housing is owned by the local agencies. Public housing is a form of project-based subsidy because households may receive assistance only if they agree to live at a particular public housing project.Currently, tenant based assistance is the most prevalent form of housing assistance provided. Historically, tenant based assistance began with the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, which were created in 1974 and 1983, respectively. These programs were replaced by the Housing Choice Voucher program, under legislation enacted in 1998. Tenant based programs allow participants to find and lease housing in the private market. Local public housing agencies (PHAs) and some state agencies serving as PHAs enter into contracts with HUD to administer the programs. The PHAs then enter into contracts with private landlords. The housing must meet housing quality standards and other program requirements. The subsidies are used to supplement the rent paid by low-income households. Under tenant-based programs, assisted households may move and take their subsidy with them. The primary difference between certificates and vouchers is that under certificates, there was a maximum rent which the unit may not exceed. By contrast, vouchers have no specific maximum rent; the low-income household must pay any excess over the payment standard, an amount that is determined locally and that is based on the Fair Market Rent. HUD calculates the Fair Market Rent based on the 40th percentile of the gross rents paid by recent movers for non-luxury units meeting certain quality standards.The third major type of HUD rental assistance is a collection of programs generally referred to as multifamily assisted, or, privately-owned, project-based housing. These types of housing assistance fall under a collection of programs created during the last four decades. What these programs have in common is that they provide rental housing that is owned by private landlords who enter into contracts with HUD in order to receive housing subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rent and total rental costs. The subsidy arrangement is termed project-based because the assisted household may not take the subsidy and move to another location. The single largest project-based program was the Section 8 program, which was created in 1974. This program allowed for new construction and substantial rehabilitation that was delivered through a wide variety of financing mechanisms. An important variant of project-based Section 8 was the Loan Management Set Aside (LMSA) program, which was provided in projects financed under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs that were not originally intended to provide deep subsidy rental assistance. Projects receiving these LMSA “piggyback” subsidies were developed under the Section 236 program, the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) program, and others that were unassisted when originally developed.Picture of Subsidized Households does not cover other housing

IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER BEFORE USING DATA. The Residential Existing Homes Program is a market transformation program that uses Building Performance Institute (BPI) Goldstar contractors to install comprehensive energy-efficient improvements. The program is designed to use building science and a whole-house approach to reduce energy use in the State’s existing one-to-four family and low-rise multifamily residential buildings and capture heating fuel and electricity-related savings. The Program provides income-based incentives, including an assisted subsidy for households with income up to 80% of the State or Median County Income, whichever is higher to install eligible energy efficiency improvements including building shell measures, high efficiency heating and cooling measures, ENERGY STAR appliances and lighting. D I S C L A I M E R: Estimated Annual kWh Savings, Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings, and First Year Energy Savings $ Estimate represent contractor reported savings derived from energy modeling software calculations and not actual realized energy savings. The accuracy of the Estimated Annual kWh Savings and Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings for projects has been evaluated by an independent third party. The results of the impact analysis indicate that, on average, actual savings amount to 35 percent of the Estimated Annual kWh Savings and 65 percent of the Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings. The analysis did not evaluate every single project, but rather a sample of projects from 2007 and 2008, so the results are applicable to the population on average but not necessarily to any individual project which could have over or under achieved in comparison to the evaluated savings. The results from the impact analysis will be updated when more recent information is available. Many factors influence the degree to which estimated savings are realized, including proper calibration of the savings model and the savings algorithms used in the modeling software. Some reasons individual households may realize savings different from those projected include, but are not limited to, changes in the number or needs of household members, changes in occupancy schedules, changes in energy usage behaviors, changes to appliances and electronics installed in the home, and beginning or ending a home business. Beginning November 2017, the Program requires the use of HPXML-compliant modeling software tools and data quality protocols have been implemented to more accurately project savings. For more information, please refer to the Evaluation Report published on NYSERDA’s website at: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/Publications/PPSER/Program-Evaluation/2012ContractorReports/2012-HPwES-Impact-Report-with-Appendices.pdf. The New York Residential Existing Homes (One to Four Units) dataset includes the following data points for projects completed during Green Jobs Green-NY, beginning November 15, 2010: Home Performance Project ID, Home Performance Site ID, Project County, Project City, Project Zip, Gas Utility, Electric Utility, Project Completion Date, Customer Type, Low-Rise or Home Performance Indicator, Total Project Cost (USD), Total Incentives (USD), Type of Program Financing, Amount Financed Through Program (USD), Pre-Retrofit Home Heating Fuel Type, Year Home Built, Size of Home, Volume of Home, Number of Units, Measure Type, Estimated Annual kWh Savings, Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings, First Year Energy Savings $ Estimate (USD), Homeowner Received Green Jobs-Green NY Free/Reduced Cost Audit (Y/N). How does your organization use this dataset? What other NYSERDA or energy-related datasets would you like to see on Open NY? Let us know by emailing OpenNY@nyserda.ny.gov.

More than 1 million U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-supported public housing units provide rental housing for eligible low-income families across the country. These units range from scattered single-family houses to high-rise apartments. In this project, the Advanced Residential Integrated Energy Solutions Collaborative (ARIES) worked with two public housing authorities (PHAs) to develop packages of energy efficiency retrofit measures the PHAs can cost-effectively implement with their own staffs in the normal course of housing operations at the time when units are refurbished between occupancies. ARIES conducted a survey of PHAs to assess their receptiveness to this concept and the applicability of the concept to PHA units. The results of the survey, to which more than 100 PHAs responded, support the proposed approach. The project consisted of a field evaluation in which energy audits were performed on a sample of PHA units at two housing authorities. Energy efficiency turnover protocols were developed for typical units, the protocol was implemented by PHA staff, and the effectiveness of the protocol was quantified through field testing and modeling. The energy efficiency turnover protocols emphasized air infiltration reduction, duct sealing, and measures that improve equipment efficiency. In the 10 housing units in which ARIES documented implementation, reductions in average air leakage of 16%-20% and duct leakage of 38% were obtained. Total source energy consumption savings was estimated at 6%-10% based on Building Energy Optimization modeling with a simple payback of 1.7-2.2 years. Implementation challenges were encountered, mainly related to required operational changes and budgetary constraints. Lack of complete training and inadequate quality control can prevent PHAs from effectively retrofitting units to their full potential. Nevertheless, despite these hurdles, simple improvements, such as caulking and sealing penetrations, windows, and doors; sealing duct boots; and adding pipe insulation into a standardized turnover protocol can feasibly be accomplished by PHA staff at low or no cost. At typical housing unit turnover rates, these measures could impact hundreds of thousands of units per year nationally. Islip Housing Authority - Single Story Typical home - Raleigh, NC Raleigh Housing Authority - 2 story typical home in Raleigh housing authority - Terrace Park

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Family Resources Survey (FRS) has been running continuously since 1992 to meet the information needs of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It is almost wholly funded by DWP. The FRS collects information from a large, and representative sample of private households in the United Kingdom (prior to 2002, it covered Great Britain only). The interview year runs from April to March.The focus of the survey is on income, and how much comes from the many possible sources (such as employee earnings, self-employed earnings or profits from businesses, and dividends; individual pensions; state benefits, including Universal Credit and the State Pension; and other sources such as savings and investments). Specific items of expenditure, such as rent or mortgage, Council Tax and water bills, are also covered.Many other topics are covered and the dataset has a very wide range of personal characteristics, at the adult or child, family and then household levels. These include education, caring, childcare and disability. The dataset also captures material deprivation, household food security and (new for 2021/22) household food bank usage. The FRS is a national statistic whose results are published on the gov.uk website. It is also possible to create your own tables from FRS data, using DWP’s Stat Xplore tool. Further information can be found on the gov.uk Family Resources Survey webpage. Safe Room Access FRS data In addition to the standard End User Licence (EUL) version, Safe Room access datasets, containing unrounded data and additional variables, are also available for FRS from 2005/06 onwards - see SN 7196, where the extra contents are listed. The Safe Room version also includes secure access versions of the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) and Pensioners' Incomes (PI) datasets. The Safe Room access data are currently only available to UK HE/FE applicants and for access at the UK Data Archive's Safe Room at the University of Essex, Colchester. Prospective users of the Safe Room access version of the FRS/HBAI/PI will need to fulfil additional requirements beyond those associated with the EUL datasets. Full details of the application requirements are available from Guidance on applying for the Family Resources Survey: Secure Access.FRS, HBAI and PIThe FRS underpins the related Households Below Average Income (HBAI) dataset, which focuses on poverty in the UK, and the related Pensioners' Incomes (PI) dataset. The EUL versions of HBAI and PI are held under SNs 5828 and 8503 respectively. The secure access versions are held within the Safe Room FRS study under SN 7196 (see above). The FRS aims to: support the monitoring of the social security programme; support the costing and modelling of changes to national insurance contributions and social security benefits; provide better information for the forecasting of benefit expenditure. From April 2002, the FRS was extended to include Northern Ireland. Detailed information regarding anonymisation within the FRS can be found in the anonymised variables volume of the dataset documentation. For the second edition (October 2014) the data have been re-grossed following revision of the FRS grossing methodology to take account of the 2011 Census mid-year population estimates. New variable GROSS4 has been added to the dataset. Main Topics: Household characteristics (composition, tenure type); tenure and housing costs including Council Tax, mortgages, insurance, water and sewage rates; school milk and meals; educational grants and loans; children in education; informal care (given and received); childcare; occupation and employment; health restrictions on work; children's health; wage details; self-employed earnings; personal and occupational pension schemes; income and benefit receipt; income from pensions and trusts, royalties and allowances, maintenance and other sources; income tax payments and refunds; National Insurance contributions; earnings from odd jobs; children's earnings; interest and dividends; investments; National Savings products; assets. Standard Measures Standard Occupational Classification Multi-stage stratified random sample Face-to-face interview Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing 2007 2008 ABSENTEEISM ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS AGE APARTMENTS APPLICATION FOR EMP... APPOINTMENT TO JOB ATTITUDES BANK ACCOUNTS BEDROOMS BONDS BUILDING SOCIETY AC... BUSES BUSINESS RECORDS CARE OF DEPENDANTS CARE OF THE DISABLED CARE OF THE ELDERLY CHARITABLE ORGANIZA... CHILD BENEFITS CHILD CARE CHILD DAY CARE CHILD MINDERS CHILD MINDING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS CHILD WORKERS CHILDREN CHRONIC ILLNESS CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS COHABITATION COLOUR TELEVISION R... COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS COMMUTING CONCESSIONARY TELEV... CONSUMPTION COST OF LIVING COSTS COUNCIL TAX CREDIT UNIONS Consumption and con... DAY NURSERIES DEBILITATIVE ILLNESS DEBTS DISABILITIES DISABILITY DISCRIMI... DISABLED CHILDREN DISABLED PERSONS DOMESTIC RESPONSIBI... ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ECONOMIC VALUE EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND EDUCATIONAL FEES EDUCATIONAL GRANTS EDUCATIONAL INSTITU... EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS ELDERLY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ENDOWMENT ASSURANCE ETHNIC GROUPS EXPENDITURE EXTRACURRICULAR ACT... FAMILIES FAMILY MEMBERS FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FINANCIAL RESOURCES FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOOD FREE SCHOOL MEALS FRIENDS FRINGE BENEFITS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT FURNISHED ACCOMMODA... FURTHER EDUCATION Family life and mar... GENDER GIFTS GRANDPARENTS GRANTS HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD HEALTH HEALTH SERVICES HEARING IMPAIRED PE... HEARING IMPAIRMENTS HIGHER EDUCATION HOLIDAY LEAVE HOME BASED WORK HOME OWNERSHIP HOME SHARING HOURS OF WORK HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS HOUSEHOLD HEAD S OC... HOUSEHOLD INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HOUSING HOUSING FACILITIES HOUSING FINANCE HOUSING TENURE INCOME INCOME TAX INDUSTRIES INSURANCE INSURANCE PREMIUMS INTEREST FINANCE INVESTMENT INVESTMENT RETURN Income JOB DESCRIPTION JOB HUNTING JOB SEEKER S ALLOWANCE LANDLORDS LEAVE LOANS LODGERS LOW PAY MANAGERS MARITAL STATUS MARRIED WOMEN MARRIED WOMEN WORKERS MATERNITY LEAVE MATERNITY PAY MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS MORTGAGE PROTECTION... MORTGAGES MOTORCYCLES NEIGHBOURS Northern Ireland OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS OCCUPATIONAL QUALIF... OCCUPATIONS ONE PARENT FAMILIES ONLINE BANKING OVERTIME PARENTS PART TIME COURSES PART TIME EMPLOYMENT PARTNERSHIPS BUSINESS PASSENGERS PATERNITY LEAVE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS PENSIONS PHYSICALLY DISABLED... PHYSICIANS POVERTY PRIVATE EDUCATION PRIVATE PERSONAL PE... PRIVATE SCHOOLS PROFITS QUALIFICATIONS RATES REBATES REDUNDANCY REDUNDANCY PAY REMOTE BANKING RENTED ACCOMMODATION RENTS RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY RETIREMENT ROOM SHARING ROOMS ROYALTIES SAVINGS SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AN... SCHOLARSHIPS SCHOOL MILK PROVISION SCHOOLCHILDREN SCHOOLS SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT SECONDARY EDUCATION SECONDARY SCHOOLS SELF EMPLOYED SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND... SHARES SHIFT WORK SICK LEAVE SICK PAY SICK PERSONS SOCIAL CLASS SOCIAL HOUSING SOCIAL SECURITY SOCIAL SECURITY BEN... SOCIAL SECURITY CON... SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL SUPPORT SOCIO ECONOMIC INDI... SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS SPECIAL EDUCATION SPOUSES STATE EDUCATION STATE HEALTH SERVICES STATE RETIREMENT PE... STUDENT HOUSING STUDENT LOANS STUDENTS STUDY SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENT SUPERVISORS SUPERVISORY STATUS Social stratificati... TAXATION TELEPHONES TELEVISION LICENCES TELEVISION RECEIVERS TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT TENANCY AGREEMENTS TENANTS HOME PURCHA... TERMINATION OF SERVICE TIED HOUSING TIME TOP MANAGEMENT TRAINING UNEARNED INCOME UNEMPLOYED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNFURNISHED ACCOMMO... UNWAGED WORKERS VISION IMPAIRMENTS VISUALLY IMPAIRED P... VOCATIONAL EDUCATIO... VOLUNTARY WORK WAGES WATER RATES WIDOWED WORKING MOTHERS WORKING WOMEN property and invest...

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.

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.