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.

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

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.