Excessive Housing Cost Burden

Housing costs have increased significantly, and account for an increasing proportion of household budgets. These increased housing costs are particularly burdensome to low-income households that pay more than 35% of their gross income on housing. The Excessive Housing Cost Burden indicator measures the proportion of all neighborhood households, both homeowners and renters, paying more than 35% of their gross income for housing, regardless of income levels. These housing costs often force families to choose between paying for shelter and other essential goods and services. Low-income individuals who struggle to pay high housing costs are less likely to have a usual source of medical care, and are more likely to postpone medical treatment and end up in the emergency room. Lack of affordable housing is associated with emotional, behavioral and academic problems among children, and with increased risk of teen pregnancy, early drug use, and depression during adolescence. These impacts can have long-term health consequence. This is an “inverse” measure: the higher the proportion of neighborhood residents paying excessive housing costs, the higher the negative impact on community health. Listed under the Housing domain, the Excessive Housing Cost Burden indicator is also relevant to the Economic Health, Employment Opportunities, Health Systems and Public Safety, Educational Opportunities and Neighborhood Characteristics domains. Data for this indicator can be found in the U.S. Census.

Neighborhoodsort descending Indicator Value Rank
Acipco-Finley 41.2% 52
Airport Highlands 44.3% 66
Apple Valley 32.9% 21
Arlington - West End 43.2% 63
Belview Heights 38.3% 47
Bridlewood 35.7% 30
Brown Springs 41.6% 54
Brownsville Heights 44.6% 68
Brummitt Heights 34.0% 24
Bush Hills 44.5% 67
Central City 36.0% 32
Central Park 42.5% 59
Central Pratt 45.1% 72
College Hills 46.8% 78
Collegeville 56.8% 95
Crestline 24.8% 8
Crestwood North 19.1% 2
Crestwood South 21.8% 6
Dolomite 30.5% 15
Druid Hills 41.8% 55
East Avondale 29.8% 13
East Birmingham 30.9% 18
East Brownville 40.6% 50
East Lake 44.6% 68
East Thomas 13.1% 1
Eastwood 42.6% 60
Echo Highlands 32.5% 20
Enon Ridge 37.9% 42
Ensley 54.7% 92
Ensley Highlands 47.2% 79
Evergreen 49.5% 86
Fairmont 37.0% 40
Fairview 49.4% 85
Five Points South 39.0% 48
Forest Park 30.0% 14
Fountain Heights 46.4% 76
Garden Highlands 36.6% 35
Gate City 47.4% 80
Germania Park 44.8% 70
Glen Iris 42.2% 57
Grasselli Heights 35.6% 29
Graymont 43.1% 62
Green Acres 38.0% 43
Harriman Park 49.1% 84
Highland Park 29.4% 12
Hillman 43.6% 64
Hillman Park 41.0% 51
Hooper City 41.4% 53
Huffman 36.1% 33
Industrial Center 38.2% 45
Inglenook 50.5% 88
Jones Valley 41.9% 56
Killough Springs 38.2% 45
Kingston 30.8% 17
Liberty Highlands 21.7% 5
Maple Grove 33.7% 22
Mason City 42.7% 61
North Avondale 53.3% 91
North Birmingham 48.1% 83
North East Lake 45.2% 73
North Pratt 36.8% 36
North Titusville 49.5% 86
Norwood 65.2% 99
Oak Ridge 28.6% 11
Oak Ridge Park 52.4% 90
Oakwood Place 47.4% 80
Overton 20.5% 3
Oxmoor 31.2% 19
Penfield Park 33.7% 22
Pine Knoll Vista 34.0% 24
Powderly 35.7% 30
Redmont Park 28.3% 10
Riley 43.7% 65
Rising - West Princeton 45.5% 74
Roebuck 46.4% 76
Roebuck Springs 30.6% 16
Roosevelt 28.1% 9
Sandusky 23.0% 7
Sherman Heights 34.8% 28
Smithfield 45.0% 71
Smithfield Estates 20.5% 3
South East Lake 50.6% 89
South Pratt 48.0% 82
South Titusville 56.3% 93
South Woodlawn 42.4% 58
Southside 36.3% 34
Spring Lake 34.2% 26
Sun Valley 38.1% 44
Tarpley City 37.1% 41
Thomas 36.8% 36
Tuxedo 58.1% 97
Wahouma 46.3% 75
West Brownville 34.4% 27
West End Manor 39.8% 49
West Goldwire 36.9% 38
Woodland Park 56.3% 93
Woodlawn 36.9% 38
Wylam 64.0% 98
Zion City 57.3% 96

Key Citations:
1. Jelleyman T, Spencer N. Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2008. 62(7): 584–592.
2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Social Determinants of Health. Published 2011. Accessed December 27, 2013. Available at: www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2011/06/what-sh....
3. Kushel MB, Gupta R, Gee L, Haas JS. Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006; Jan;21(1):71-7
4. Ma CT, Gee L, Kushel MB. Associations between housing instability and food insecurity with health care access in low-income children. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2008; Jan-Feb;8(1):50-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ambp.2007.08.004.
5. McLaughlin KA, Nandi A, Keyes KM, Uddin M, Aiello AE, Galea S, Koenen KC. Home foreclosure and risk of psychiatric morbidity during the recent financial crisis. Psychol Med. 2012; 42(7):1441-8. doi: 10.1017/S0033291711002613. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
6. Ford JL, Browning CR. Neighborhood social disorganization and the acquisition of trichomoniasis among young adults in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2011; Sep;101(9):1696-703. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300213. Epub 2011 Jul 21.
7. Reid KW, Vittinghoff E, Kushel MB. Association between the level of housing instability, economic standing and health care access: a meta-regression. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008; Nov;19(4):1212-28. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0068.
8. Stone, Michael E, “Shelter Poverty: New Ideas on Housing Affordability”, Temple University Press, 1993.