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.

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

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.