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

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.