Vacancy Rates

The Vacancy Rates indicator measures the share of vacant residential properties within a neighborhood. Physical disorder related to blight and vacant properties is associated with many negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Vacant residential properties are linked with higher levels of crime and illegal activity such as prostitution, drug sales, and drug use by adolescents, as well as increased risk of fire injury. Vacancy rates are also associated with worse maternal and infant health outcomes. High levels of “boarded-up housing” have been found to be a predictor of gonorrhea, premature mortality, diabetes, homicide, and suicide. Vacant housing is also a predictor of high blood lead levels in children. It is important to keep in mind that vacancy is not abandonment. Vacant properties are spaces that are not occupied but may still be maintained, so a vacant property does not automatically mean a blighted one. An abandoned property is a space that no longer has a steward. In some cases, vacancy can eventually lead to abandonment. The Vacancy Rates indicator is an “inverse” measure: the higher the proportion of vacant homes in a neighborhood, the lower the community health. Posted under the Housing domain, the Vacancy Rates indicator also impacts the Blight, Economic Health, Social Cohesion, Health Systems and Public Safety, and Neighborhood Characteristics domains. Data on housing vacancy is available from the U.S. Census.

Neighborhoodsort ascending Indicator Value Rank
Zion City 12.8% 25
Wylam 12.8% 25
Woodlawn 24.5% 71
Woodland Park 14.7% 34
West Goldwire 10.3% 18
West End Manor 21.5% 55
West Brownville 25.0% 74
Wahouma 29.0% 86
Tuxedo 27.1% 82
Thomas 23.8% 67
Tarpley City 9.9% 14
Sun Valley 14.7% 34
Spring Lake 13.5% 28
Southside 6.7% 4
South Woodlawn 27.6% 83
South Titusville 20.6% 51
South Pratt 33.8% 92
South East Lake 21.4% 54
Smithfield Estates 6.9% 5
Smithfield 24.5% 71
Sherman Heights 7.6% 7
Sandusky 21.6% 56
Roosevelt 20.5% 50
Roebuck Springs 14.9% 36
Roebuck 11.6% 21
Rising - West Princeton 25.9% 79
Riley 26.1% 80
Redmont Park 12.0% 22
Powderly 28.5% 85
Pine Knoll Vista 10.0% 15
Penfield Park 22.2% 59
Oxmoor 13.5% 28
Overton 10.0% 15
Oakwood Place 29.0% 86
Oak Ridge Park 16.7% 38
Oak Ridge 1.2% 1
Norwood 34.8% 94
North Titusville 35.4% 95
North Pratt 24.4% 69
North East Lake 23.9% 68
North Birmingham 19.5% 44
North Avondale 2.7% 2
Mason City 24.7% 73
Maple Grove 22.0% 58
Liberty Highlands 7.4% 6
Kingston 25.5% 76
Killough Springs 18.3% 41
Jones Valley 30.8% 89
Inglenook 30.2% 88
Industrial Center 9.7% 13
Huffman 12.7% 24
Hooper City 25.6% 77
Hillman Park 9.0% 11
Hillman 57.4% 99
Highland Park 13.9% 31
Harriman Park 23.6% 65
Green Acres 22.3% 60
Graymont 17.4% 39
Grasselli Heights 6.5% 3
Glen Iris 23.6% 65
Germania Park 21.0% 52
Gate City 14.6% 33
Garden Highlands 10.5% 19
Fountain Heights 22.7% 63
Forest Park 17.6% 40
Five Points South 22.3% 60
Fairview 30.9% 90
Fairmont 24.4% 69
Evergreen 19.9% 45
Ensley Highlands 19.1% 43
Ensley 21.1% 53
Enon Ridge 33.8% 92
Echo Highlands 13.7% 30
Eastwood 8.8% 9
East Thomas 26.8% 81
East Lake 21.9% 57
East Brownville 8.9% 10
East Birmingham 33.6% 91
East Avondale 20.1% 48
Druid Hills 36.8% 96
Dolomite 14.4% 32
Crestwood South 9.0% 11
Crestwood North 12.1% 23
Crestline 11.2% 20
Collegeville 25.4% 75
College Hills 28.4% 84
Central Pratt 19.9% 45
Central Park 23.2% 64
Central City 15.6% 37
Bush Hills 25.7% 78
Brummitt Heights 10.0% 15
Brownsville Heights 39.9% 97
Brown Springs 13.2% 27
Bridlewood 20.0% 47
Belview Heights 20.4% 49
Arlington - West End 22.5% 62
Apple Valley 7.6% 7
Airport Highlands 40.5% 98
Acipco-Finley 18.7% 42

Key Citations:
1. Center for Community Progress, Turning Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places. Available at: http://www.communityprogress.net/the-help-you-need-pages-7.php
2. Cohen, Deborah A., et al. “Neighborhood physical conditions and health” (2003). American Journal of Public Health.
3. Garvin, Eugenia, et al. "More Than Just An Eyesore: Local Insights And Solutions on Vacant Land And Urban Health" (2012). Journal of Urban Health.
4. Pettit K, Kingsley T, Coulton C, Cigna J. 2003. Neighborhoods and Health: Building Evidence for Local Policy. US Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/neighborhoods-health03/report.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2013.
5. Reagan PB, Salsberry PJ. Race and ethnic differences in determinants of preterm birth in the USA: broadening the social context. Soc Sci Med. 2005 May; 60(10):2217-28. Epub 2004 Dec 7.Accessed May 23. 2013.
6. Sargent JD, Bailey A, Simon P, Blake M, Dalton MA. Census tract analysis of lead exposure in Rhode Island children. Environ Res. 1997; 74(2):159-68.
7. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. “Broken Windows” (1982). The Atlantic Online.
8. Whitaker S. 2011. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Foreclosure Related Vacancy Rates. Accessed May 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-12.cfm.