Rural Poverty in the United States

Families living in or near poverty may struggle to meet their most basic needs for adequate food and shelter. In extreme cases, some families experience outright persistent hunger or homelessness. Although most Americans, even those in poverty, do not experience food and housing hardships that severe, they may face serious hardships referred to as “food insecurity” and “housing insecurity.” Being unable to obtain adequate nutritious food and decent, affordable housing can have negative effects on families and individuals, as evidenced by poor physical and mental health of both adults and children and adverse developmental outcomes for children. An idyllic scene of rural America often depicts vegetable gardens, family farms, and welcoming porches. As is made clear throughout this book, however, such situations are not the reality for many rural poor. In rural areas across the United States, food is not always in abundance, and living arrangements are not always ideal. This chapter explores these issues further, examining what the federal government means by the terms food insecurity and housing insecurity, considering what experiencing these difficulties means for rural residents, and comparing how their experiences differ from similar households in other “residence areas”—suburban areas and principal cities.²

Most U.S. households are able to obtain adequate food for all their members. Each year, however, a minority of American households experience food insecurity at times. In 2014, 14 percent of U.S. households struggled to put enough food on the table (figure 10.1). In rural or nonmetropolitan counties, 17.1 percent of households were food insecure. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food-insecure households as those that “were, at times, unable to acquire adequate food for one or more household members because they had insufficient money and other resources for food” (Coleman-Jensen, Rabbitt, Gregory, and Singh 2015, 8). During 2014, the severe range of food insecurity, described as very low food security, affected 5.6 percent of U.S. households overall and 7.3 percent of households in rural counties. Households with very low food security “were food insecure to the extent that eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and their food intake reduced, at least some time during the year, because they could not afford enough food” (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2015, 8). Households classified as experiencing very low food security report cutting the size of or skipping meals, being hungry because they could not afford enough food, and in some cases going a whole day without eating.

U.S. food security measurement began in 1995 (for a brief history, see Coleman-Jensen 2015). The prevalence and severity of food insecurity in U.S. households is monitored annually by the Economic Research Service of USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017). The questions used to assess food security are included in the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). The CPS is a federal survey that is the source for national unemployment and poverty statistics.3 Food security status is determined by responses to a series of survey questions about conditions and behaviors that characterize households having difficulty meeting basic food needs (see “Questions Used to Assess the Food Security of Households in the CPS Food Security Survey” on p. 287 and figure 10.2). Each question asks about experiences in the past twelve months and specifies a lack of money and other resources to obtain food as the reason for the hardship, thus excluding voluntary fasting or dieting from the measure (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2015).⁴

Trends in food insecurity rates across rural and urban residence areas (measured here as nonmetropolitan counties or metropolitan areas divided into principal cities and suburban areas) followed a similar pattern to that of the United States as a whole (figure 10.4).⁵ Since the recession, however, food insecurity has continued to worsen in rural areas (nonmetropolitan counties) while improving somewhat in more urban areas (metropolitan areas divided into suburban areas and principal cities). The prevalence of food insecurity in principal cities had begun to decline, from 17.7 percent in 2008 to 16.7 percent in 2013. However, food insecurity in rural counties continued to increase after the recession officially ended, from 14.2 percent in 2008 to 15.1 percent in 2013. This increase in rural food insecurity is counter to the trend observed immediately after the recession when rural counties appeared less affected by rising food insecurity rates than urban areas (Coleman-Jensen 2012). It appears that the recession may have had a less immediate effect in rural areas, but food insecurity in rural areas continued to worsen after the official end of the recession. There is evidence that economic recovery in rural counties has lagged behind the recovery in urban areas. Rural employment gains since the recession have been lower than employment growth in urban areas, and in mid-2015 rural employment remained below the prerecession employment peak in 2007. Meanwhile, urban employment growth has been consistently rising and by mid-2015 had far surpassed the prerecession urban employment peak (Kusmin 2015). Nationally, trends in employment are closely linked to trends in food insecurity (Nord, Coleman-Jensen, and Gregory 2014). This important relationship is borne out in rural areas.

Food security statistics by area of residence for 2014 are not precisely comparable to those for 2013. Therefore, changes from 2013 in the prevalence of food insecurity by area of residence should be interpreted with caution (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2015). In 2014, 17.1 percent of households in rural counties were food insecure (table 10.1). Of these, 7.3 percent were in the severe range of food insecurity described as very low food security. Across the residence area classifications, food insecurity was highest in rural counties (labeled nonmetropolitan in table 10.1), intermediate in principal cities (15.7 percent), and lowest in suburbs and other urban areas outside principal cities (11.8 percent; labeled metropolitan, not in principal cities).

Across all residence areas, minority groups had higher food insecurity rates than non-Hispanic whites in 2014. Non-Hispanic blacks had similar food insecurity rates in principal cities and rural counties (about 29 percent). Non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and other non-Hispanics all faced higher food insecurity rates in rural counties than in urban areas. Other non-Hispanics had particularly high food insecurity prevalence rates in rural areas. Fully one-quarter of other non-Hispanics face food insecurity. Other non-Hispanics in rural areas are primarily Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.⁶ Other research has shown very high food insecurity rates on rural Native American reservations (Bauer et al. 2012). High food insecurity prevalence rates among Native Americans are likely related to high poverty rates.

Housing has been recognized as a strong social determinant of health (Cutts et al. 2011). Housing cost, housing problems, neighborhood disorder, residential instability, and homeownership interact in ways that affect child development and well-being (Coley, Kull, Leventhal, and Lynch 2014). Parents may choose to spend a greater fraction of income for housing that offers a better and safer environment for children, but such choices require the sacrifice of other life-enhancing economic goods, especially for poor families. Predicted child achievement scores provide some empirical support for the conventional standard of housing affordability because scores increase as housing expenditures approach 30 percent of income, then decrease as cost burdens worsen (Newman and Holupka 2014).

Manufactured housing accounts for part of the greater homeownership rate and the single-family dwelling share in rural areas. It is an important source of rural housing, especially for poor households. Manufactured housing represents 5 percent of the occupied U.S. housing stock, but almost 13 percent within rural areas. Of the nation’s 5.9 million occupied manufactured housing units in 2013, the majority (53 percent) were in the South. Homeowners occupied 77 percent of such units and renters 23 percent. Manufactured homes struggled against a bad reputation for decades, but safety, durability, and energy efficiency of the stock has increased dramatically since HUD began regulating manufactured housing in 1976.¹⁰ Of the nation’s 5.9 million occupied manufactured housing units in 2013, only 1 percent were reported with severe physical problems and another 4 percent with moderate physical problems; these rates differ little from those of standard site-built housing stock.¹¹ Improved quality and designs have helped make manufactured housing an attractive low-cost alternative to renting, but manufactured homes nevertheless lose value and offer little inherent asset-building potential without ownership of the underlying land (Boehm and Schlottman 2004).

Across the nation, most deeply subsidized rental housing is provided by HUD. The Housing Choice Voucher, public housing, and assisted multifamily housing programs assist about 5 million renter households. The subsidies provided through these programs generally reduce the tenant’s rent obligation to 30 percent of household income. In addition to HUD-assisted housing, the USDA’s Rural Housing Service provides about 400,000 units in rural areas through the Section 515 program (HAC 2012). Similar to some of HUD’s assisted multifamily programs, the Section 515 program provides interest credit rate subsidies to support affordable rental housing developments in rural areas. Another 2.2 million units of affordable rental housing have been placed in service through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, of which roughly one-half may receive monthly rental assistance, in some cases including the deep rental assistance of HUD’s Housing Choice Vouchers.¹⁴

The availability of housing assistance for very low income renter households is greater in rural areas than in central city and suburban areas,15 and somewhat more prevalent in the Rust Belt regions—the Northeast and Midwest. The scatterplot (figure 10.5) illustrates that availability of housing assistance is inversely associated with the prevalence of worst case housing needs (Steffen et al. 2015). Although this reflects the definition that only unassisted very low income renters can have worst case needs, it also relates to the fact that rapid population growth within Sunbelt regions has occurred during an era of diminished federal resources for expanding housing assistance. Housing assistance has not kept up with growing need in many areas of the country.

The principal cause of worst case needs is severe rent burdens that result from a shortage of affordable rental units. Nationwide in 2013, there were only 97.2 affordable units for every 100 very low income renters, and substantially fewer (65.3) affordable units per 100 extremely low income renters (table 10.3). Furthermore, because of suboptimal allocation, a substantial fraction of affordable units is not necessarily available to renters who need them the most. Higher-income renters often occupy less costly units than they can afford, and the most affordable vacant units of decent quality are quickly leased. Nationwide, there were only 65.2 affordable and available units per 100 very low income renters, and 39.0 affordable and available units per 100 extremely low income renters.

Among households experiencing severe housing problems, whether severe cost burdens or severe physical problems, housing insecurity is significantly higher. Table 10.4 presents estimates of the proportion of renters and owners that report various precursors and types of housing insecurity, such as missing one rent payment, missing two to three rent payments, having utilities shut off, or being threatened with eviction—as well as the self-reported prevalence of actual eviction or foreclosure. The data include breaks by residence area and household income relative to area median income. The results suggest that the lower incomes associated with poverty generally exacerbate housing insecurity among renters, regardless of residence area, whereas housing insecurity among homeowners may have a different relationship with income. Because of limited sample sizes in rural areas, however, the differences between residence areas and income groups are not statistically significant, so no reliable conclusions can be drawn about such differences.

The American Housing Survey contains questions that shed light on households who may be doubled-up. According to 2013 AHS data (HUD 2015a), 916,000 households in rural areas (4 percent) had a household member who moved out during the previous twelve months. Some of those move-outs doubtless result from natural family dynamics and household formation, but in 27 percent of those cases the individual had been staying because he or she lacked money or financial support—which is not significantly different for central city or suburban households.¹⁷ Among rural households with move-outs, 22 percent had more than one individual staying there. Most move-outs in rural areas, 58 percent, moved to a place of their own, similar to the 57 percent in central cities and 61 percent in the suburbs.

It is difficult to obtain reliable data on homelessness because federal surveys typically rely on address-based samples of respondents. HUD’s Annual Homelessness Assessment Reports (AHAR) use different strategies to summarize the extent and nature of homelessness nationwide. The reports compile two types of data from state and local consortia of homeless service providers known as Continuums of Care (CoCs): annual point-in-time counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations18 and the administrative data that homeless service providers collect about sheltered populations through Homeless Management Information Systems. The 2014 AHAR thus represents the best available data about the state of homelessness, but it has limited information about rural areas because they are captured by CoCs covering the nonurban “balance of state” or entire states. The available data show a diverging trend between homelessness in urban areas and the rest of the country. The national point-in-time count during January 2014 found 578,000 homeless people, including 362,000 individuals and 216,000 people in families (HUD 2015b).

Questions Used to Assess the Food Security of Households in the CPS Food Security Survey

1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

5. (If yes to question 4.) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

10. (If yes to question 9.) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

[Questions 11–18 were asked only if the household included children age 0–17.]

11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No)

16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

17. (If yes to question 16.) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Source: Coleman-Jensen et al. (2015).

Case Study: Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Rural West

Sarah Whitley

This case study is from 2011 in a rural county in Washington State with seventeen towns and a population of approximately 45,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The poverty level was twice the national average, and many of the towns were experiencing population and job opportunity declines, changes in grocery retailing to food deserts, and aging populations. As rural areas experience a lack of employment opportunities, increasing poverty, and declining population totals, communities also often experience local businesses closing, such as retail grocery stores (Blanchard and Lyson 2006; Kaufman 1998, 2000; Lyson and Raymer 2000). Researchers describe “food deserts” as places with no grocery or food retailing or only having a small grocer or convenience store that carries limited and expensive food items (Bitto, Morton, Oakland, and Sand 2003; Morton et al. 2005; Schafft, Jensen, and Hinrichs 2009).

Residents using community food pantries were interviewed. Charlie Wilson¹ is a 52-year-old lifelong single-male resident of Cloverdale, and his story illustrates the challenges rural low-income food-insecure individuals face with few community resources available to address hunger. Charlie discusses the changes in the area he has noticed:

The county has changed a lot. Many of the smaller towns, like Cloverdale, had more businesses and more residents, but the area lost a lot of farming jobs. I remember as a kid driving through the different towns and the downtowns were full with different shops and cafes, most have hardly anything left anymore. It’s also hard keeping the younger residents here.

For the majority of his adult life, Charlie farmed the family land passed down to him. Then, in early 2000, a major agricultural accident left him disabled. He reluctantly sold all but two acres of his land to a neighbor. He lives in the home in which he grew up and that his grandparents built, but the house is in need of major repairs. Charlie lives on limited resources and has found it very difficult to acquire enough food to last him through each month:

Things used to be easier when I was still farming, but after the accident I just couldn’t do it anymore. To be honest, I would say that for a while I was depressed because my family had the land for so long and then I lost it [looks down at the floor]. I live on my savings and disability check, but I barely have enough to get me through each month.

Charlie answered some questions about how the issue of food deserts was affecting his food security in the changing rural landscape:

Do you shop in town for your groceries?

When we had a grocery store I shopped in town, but the store closed about two years ago and so now I travel to Point View about 35 miles one-way to get groceries. Point View is the closest place I can get to that has a store with fairly good prices. Cloverdale has one convenient store left, but if you want a gallon of milk you will pay about twice as much as what you can get it for in Point View, and the expiration date is usually pretty close to being up.

The changing retail environment further challenges Charlie’s ability to deal with his food insecurity. Charlie is living on a limited income, and now that he travels to purchase food the transportation expense cuts into his food budget. He shops once per month, and he has to be extremely strategic about what he buys. He eats more processed food than he would like because the shelf life of processed food is longer and his refrigerator and freezer space is limited.

Q:	Do you use any other resources to get food throughout the month?
A:	Yes, once a month Cloverdale has a food give-away at the local Grange community building. As a member of the Grange I used to provide resources [breaks eye contact and looks at the floor]; funny now I am receiving. The give-away is a blessing, but it would be nice if we got more food. Some of my friends told me I should apply for food stamps, but I just can’t make myself do it. I know it might help, but I see and hear how people talk about other folks who use that assistance.
Q:	You’ve heard people talk negatively about residents who use food stamps?
A:	For sure, you go hungry or ask the community for support before accepting government hand-outs.

Charlie’s reluctance to use food stamps speaks to the stigma this resource symbolizes in this rural setting. Charlie’s views of using public assistance also mirror what other low-income individuals in the county expressed, that while going to a community pantry was embarrassing but necessary, applying for and using food stamps was out of the question.

Q:	How much food do you generally get at a give-away?
A:	One grocery bag, but if you have more people in your household then you get a little more food. One problem is [that the pantry] is only one time a month and it’s not enough food to last someone for a week.
Q:	What types of items do you get at the food give-away?
A:	That’s the other thing. It’s a lot of food that is pretty bad for you, I mean nutritionally. You get a couple of cans of vegetables or fruit, which have high sodium or sugar, some cereal, pasta, pasta sauce, usually some sort of canned meat, and then snack items that are not very good for you. Sometimes we get fresh fruits and vegetables, but they are usually close to being rotten. I used to have a garden and would trade vegetables with my neighbors for meat. That all changed when I got hurt, I couldn’t grow vegetables anymore, but my neighbors still gave me meat until they passed away.
Q:	Are there any other food resources you could use in the county?
A:	Other towns have food give-aways, but you are only supposed to go if you live in that town. I usually eat only once or twice a day; that way I have an easier time making it through the month.

Charlie’s story mirrors many of the food-insecure residents in the county. The community assistance is limited by how often pantries take place and the items offered. Residents also are very reluctant to use food stamps as a strategy to address their hunger, and many participants discussed the challenges of food deserts and traveling farther to acquire food. The limited resources available in the rural setting left many residents in a perpetual cycle of food insecurity and a compromised diet.

1 To ensure anonymity for the study area and participants, pseudonyms were used to alter the name of the county, communities, and community members, a common practice in qualitative research.

2. In this chapter, residence area geographies supported by available government data are used. The food security and housing security estimates are for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan residence categories. Nonmetropolitan is not technically synonymous with “rural” but rural is used throughout the chapter for simplicity. Rural areas are defined as nonmetropolitan counties, in contrast to suburban areas and principal (or central) cities. Note, however, that metropolitan areas frequently include areas that are “rural” in the sense of being non-urbanized, and nonmetropolitan areas sometimes include micropolitan or other urbanized areas. Because the American Housing Survey used to describe housing characteristics is based on a panel of housing units tracked for several decades, the central city, suburb, and nonmetropolitan geographies presented follow the Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined in 1983 on the basis of the 1980 census. (The AHS for 2015 began a new sample of units.)

4. All households respond to ten questions about the household as a whole and adults in the household. Households with children respond to an additional eight questions about children’s food conditions. The food security of each household is determined by the number of affirmative responses to the food security questions (affirmative responses to food-insecure conditions are “often,” “sometimes,” “almost every month,” “some months but not every month,” and “yes”). Households reporting no food-insecure conditions, or only one or two food-insecure conditions, are classified as food secure. Households are classified as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure households without children are classified as having very low food security if they report six or more affirmative responses to food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure households with children are classified as very low food secure if they report eight or more conditions.

5. Figure 10.4 only shows food insecurity statistics by residence for the years 2004–2013. Food security prevalence statistics by area of residence are not precisely comparable with those from earlier or later years. Revised metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and principal cities within them were delineated by the Office of Management and Budget in 2013, based on revised standards developed by the U.S. Census Bureau in collaboration with other federal agencies. The revised delineations were implemented beginning with the 2014 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement, so the 2014 food security statistics by area of residence are not precisely comparable with those from earlier years.

Category	Metropolitan, in principal cities		Metropolitan, not in principal cities		Nonmetropolitan
Category	Food insecure	Very low food secure	Food insecure	Very low food secure	Food insecure	Very low food secure
All households	15.7^S	5.9^S	11.8	4.8	17.1^C,S	7.3^C,S
Household composition²
With children <18 years	22.3^S	6.8^S	15.4	4.9	23.6^S	7.6^S
Married-couple families	14.3^S	2.9	10.0	2.8	17.9^C,S	4.3^C,S
Female head, no spouse	37.1^S	13.7	31.7	12.0	36.0	12.5
Male head, no spouse	23.00	7.3	18.7	4.6	24.0	14.4^C,S
With no children <18 years	12.8^S	5.5^S	9.9	4.8	14.4^C,S	7.1^C,S
More than one adult	11.1^S	4.6^S	8.1	3.7	11.5^S	5.1^S
Women living alone	15.3	6.5	13.9	7.0	19.9^C,S	9.8^C,S
Men living alone	14.2	6.7	12.3	6.6	17.2^C,S	10.4^C,S
With elderly	11.5^S	4.2^S	7.6	2.7	10.1^S	3.8^S
Elderly living alone	10.2	4.4	8.2	3.4	11.4^S	4.8
Race/ethnicity of households
White non-Hispanic	9.2	3.8	8.7	3.9	14.9^C,S	6.8^C,S
Black non-Hispanic	28.4^S	11.9^S	22.0	9.0	29.1^S	8.7^C
Hispanic³	22.4	6.7	21.2	6.7	27.2^C,S	8.8^C
Other non-Hispanic	9.0	2.6^S	9.8	4.6	25.2^C,S	12.4^C,S
Household income-to-poverty ratio
Under 1.00	39.0	16.6	38.3	18.0	41.1	19.8^C
Under 1.30	37.1	15.5	36.1	16.6	38.9	18.6^C
Under 1.85	33.9	14.0	32.6	14.4	34.3	15.4
1.85 and over	7.3^S	2.1	5.6	2.1	7.0^S	2.4
Income unknown	11.4^S	4.2	9.0	3.3	10.7	4.3
Census geographic region
Northeast	17.6^S	6.1^S	10.7	4.4	14.4^S	6.1^S
Midwest	18.6^S	6.9^S	10.6	4.8	14.8^C,S	6.8^S
South	15.2^S	6.3	13.2	5.5	19.5^C,S	7.8^C,S
West	13.5^S	4.9^S	11.3	4.0	17.2^C,S	7.4^C,S

	2003	2005	2007	2009	2011	2013
All very low income renters (thousands)	15,658	16,072	15,940	17,118	19,266	18,501
All worst case needs (thousands)	5,175	5,992	5,905	7,095	8,475	7,721
Prevalence of worst case needs	33.1%	37.3%	37.0%	41.4%	44.0%	41.7%
Nonmetropolitan very low income renters (thousands)	2,686	3,149	5,239	6,119	3,358	3,416
Nonmetropolitan worst case needs (thousands)	657	991	2,052	2,632	1,323	1,261
Prevalence of worst case needs	24.5%	31.5%	39.2%	43.0%	39.4%	36.9%

Income	Income as percent of AMI	Housing units per 100 households
Income	Income as percent of AMI	Affordable	Affordable and available	Affordable, available, and adequate
Central cities	0–30	56.6	38.2	33.0
	0–50	87.8	64.3	56.1
	0–80	132.5	101.5	90.0
Suburbs	0–30	64.4	35.3	32.5
	0–50	93.5	58.8	54.0
	0–80	138.4	98.1	91.1
Nonmetropolitan	0–30	87.5	45.3	40.7
	0–50	128.2	79.0	71.1
	0–80	142.0	105.9	95.9
Total	0–30	65.3	39.0	34.2
	0–50	97.2	65.2	58.1
	0–80	136.4	101.1	91.5

	Income as percent of AMI	New home (%)	Friends (%)	Family (%)	Different places (%)	Shelter (%)	Not reported (%)
Central cities
Renters	All incomes	59.6	9.4	20.4	1.3	2.1	7.2
	0–30% AMI	44.9	11.0	27.6	1.6	4.7	10.3
	30–50%	57.9	10.1	22.5	0.8	3.0	5.7
	50%+	66.0	8.5	16.8	1.3	0.9	6.5
Homeowners	All incomes	62.8	—	24.4	—	—	—
Suburbs
Renters	All incomes	59.4	8.0	21.5	1.6	1.7	7.9
	0–30% AMI	42.0	10.9	29.1	1.0	4.9	12.1
	30–50%	55.5	7.2	26.8	1.3	1.1	8.2
	50%+	65.8	7.3	17.6	1.9	0.9	6.6
Homeowners	All incomes	45.0	8.6	30.4	5.2	—	10.3
Nonmetropolitan areas
Renters	All incomes	56.2	6.5	27.4	1.2	1.7	7.0
	0–30% AMI	41.9	5.5	38.5	2.1	3.9	8.2
	30–50%	54.1	7.9	28.8	1.1	1.8	6.4
	50%+	62.2	6.5	22.9	0.9	0.9	6.8
Homeowners	All incomes	42.8	—	30.8	—	—	—