Back to previous section

INTRODUCTION

In a nation where homeownership is part of the “American Dream,” rental housing is often regarded as a less desirable form of housing. This tendency is all the more common in rural America, where homeownership has long been the tenure of choice for most households; the current homeownership rate for rural America is 76 percent.1 With just under 9 million rental units, only 24 percent of the rural housing stock is renter-occupied. However, a great amount of need is concentrated among rural renter households.

A recent study estimates that one out of four rural families suffers from “chronic stresses that are rooted in the social risks associated with rural residence.” These conditions include income instability, substandard housing, and inadequate social services. These factors place rural families at a greater risk of living in poor housing situations.2 For rural renters, these problems are even more intense. The majority (65 percent) of all rural renters are low-income, many live in substandard housing, and one-third pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. Over one million rural renters are considered to be worst case households; they are very low-income, and live in inadequate housing, or are extremely cost burdened. These worst case needs households are further distinguished in that they do not receive any form of federal housing assistance.

This year’s State of the Nation’s Rural Housing examines the demographics of rural rental households, the stock of occupied rural rental housing, and the operation of various Rural Housing Service (RHS) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs to address rural rental housing concerns.3 This report presents statistical data to illustrate the condition of rural rental households and housing, as well as a summary of roundtable comments from practitioners engaged in the development of rural rental housing.

Methodology

This review of rural rental housing issues reflects a variety of data collection methods. The statistical data in this report are Housing Assistance Council (HAC) calculations using microdata from the 1995 Annual Housing Survey (AHS), unless otherwise noted. 4 The AHS is conducted every two years by the Bureau of the Census for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Some data are presented throughout the text, and detailed numbers are included in tables in the appendix. This report also provides programmatic data for various rental assistance and development programs administered by the Rural Housing Service (RHS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and HUD.

These data are further supplemented by transcripts from roundtable discussions hosted by HAC. These roundtables were assembled to provide a contextual background for the available data and grassroots insight on rural rental housing issues.

The Roundtables

HAC convened three roundtable discussions on rural rental housing in summer 1999. These dialogues addressed a number of issues, including affordable rural rental housing development, preservation of existing units, and serving those residents left behind by America’s recent period of economic expansion.

Each roundtable session included national and local experts on rural rental housing issues. Each session was limited to ten or fewer participants in order to facilitate in-depth discussion and debate. 5 Discussion participants represented a broad spectrum of perspectives, interests, and expertise. For example, participants included representatives from federal and state agencies active in rural rental housing development, local and regional nonprofit housing developers and advocates, private for-profit developers, and lending institutions. Participants also reflected a great deal of geographic diversity, including the views and perspectives of four regions: the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and West Coast. The roundtables were held in Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Mo., and San Francisco, Calif.

The panel of rental housing experts attending the Washington discussion included:

  • Jim Beechler, Fannie Mae, Washington, D.C.;
  • Michael Bodaken, National Housing Trust, Washington, D.C.;
  • Carl Grate, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.;
  • Sue Harris Green, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.;
  • Saundra Jones, Kentucky Housing Corporation, Frankfurt, Ky.;
  • Joe Myer, NCALL Research, Inc., Dover, Del.;
  • John Pentecost, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.; and
  • John Zippert, Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Epes, Ala.

Participants in the Kansas City roundtable were:

  • Chris Imming, Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, Topeka, Kan.;
  • Richard Jackson, ECKAN, Inc., Ottawa, Kan.;
  • Charlie H. Marcks, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Columbia, Mo.;
  • Pete Ramsel, Missouri Housing Development Commission, Kansas City, Mo.;
  • Sue Watlov Phillips, Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless, Minneapolis, Minn.;
  • Lewis Weinberg, Weinberg Investments, Inc., Sioux City, Iowa; and
  • Mark Welch, Mercy Housing, Inc., Denver, Colo.

The San Francisco roundtable was attended by:

  • Gideon Anders, National Housing Law Project, Oakland, Calif.;
  • Celeste Cantu, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Davis, Calif.;
  • Michael Carroll, Bank of America Community Development Bank, Sacramento, Calif.;
  • Jeanette Duncan, People’s Self-Help Housing Corporation, San Luis Obispo, Calif.;
  • Maureen Markham, Housing Resource Team, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, Olympia, Wash.;
  • John F. Mealey, Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Indio, Calif.;
  • William Pavao, Division of Community Affairs, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Sacramento, Calif.;
  • Margaret Schrand, Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, Calif.;
  • Dave Summers, Bank of America Community Development Banking Group, Portland, Ore.; and
  • Brien Thane, Office of Rural and Farmworker Housing, Yakima, Wash.

Definitions

“Rural” and “nonmetropolitan” are not synonymous terms. 6 HAC defines “rural” in this report as all unurbanized areas, both within and outside of metropolitan areas. Nonmetropolitan areas are those counties that lie outside metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Metro areas consist of counties with central cities of at least 50,000 residents and surrounding contiguous counties that are metropolitan in character.

When referring to statistical data, this report uses the terms “rural” and “nonmetro” according to their precise definitions. Thus, populations referred to by these terms will differ with regard to size and location. For example, the rural population, using the HAC definition, is much larger than the nonmetro population. This report uses the term rural in a more general sense when not referring to specific data.

On to next section

Back to table of contents