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

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.