Housing Needs Assessment · part 2 of 5
Who lives here
Who lives here, and how is that changing? Built from cached public datasets (Census, DOLA, HUD) with live Census API fallbacks.
Screening tool only. Data snapshots are for early-stage community planning and site research using public Census, DOLA, and HUD datasets. They are not a certified housing needs study and do not substitute for a CHFA-required market analysis or formal due diligence.
How this jurisdiction compares to its county
A county average hides its own spread. These are the same measures computed the same way at both levels.
Select a geography above to load housing data
Executive Snapshot
Rental Affordability Gap by AMI Tier
—Renter households who need affordable rental units at each income band. Both card rows below count renter households (demand) — the first cumulative (≤ each AMI; includes everyone below), the second the non-overlapping cohort within each tier; neither row subtracts existing units. The separate Net of existing affordable supply box further down is the one that nets out rental units already priced affordable, to estimate how many still need to be built. Source: ACS B25118 renter-household income + B25063 gross rent against HUD 2025 income limits, with HUD CHAS as a county-level fallback. Owner households are excluded — the rental gap counts only households competing for rental units.
ACS 2020–2024 households under the unadjusted county 30% AMI cutoff; the CHAS tier table below uses HUD's size-adjusted limits and an older window, so its counts run lower. See methodology.
Renter households who need affordable rental units — cumulative (≤ this AMI; includes everyone below)
Households who need affordable rental units — within this tier (non-overlapping; 7 cells sum to ≤100%)
Need distribution across AMI bands — each band's share of the ≤100% total
Owner/renter shares
Owner and renter occupied housing shares (ACS).
Household composition, occupation & labor force
How big are households here, what do people do for work, and how many residents are working-age non-workforce vs retirees? Place-level ACS values where available; the page falls back to the containing county when the place sample is too small.
Household type mix
Households grouped by structure: married couples, cohabiting couples, single parents with kids, residents living alone, and other (shared / roommate / multi-adult). Heavy single-parent and living-alone shares are the canonical 1- and 2-bedroom demand drivers; heavy married-couple share signals 3+ BR family-formation demand. (ACS DP02 — 2023 vintage does not publish 1-7+ person household-size bins; that distribution lives in detail table B11016.)
Occupation mix
Five top-level Census occupation categories as a share of civilian employed residents 16+. Useful for sizing the workforce-housing affordability target — service + production occupations tend to align with the 30-60% AMI band; management/professional skew higher.
Labor force status & retiree share
Employed, unemployed, and not-in-labor-force counts for residents 16+. The retiree breakout splits "Not in labor force" by age — residents 65+ who aren't in the workforce are very likely retired, while working-age (16–64) residents not in the workforce are a different planning problem (students, caregivers, discouraged workers, disability).
Race & ethnicity
Population share by race (each "alone" category — single-race respondents) and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (which cross-cuts race in the Census schema). Place-level ACS where available; small places fall back to the containing county.
Educational attainment
Highest level of schooling completed for residents 25 and over. HS+ and Bachelor's+ rates are the standard benchmarks for workforce-housing planning — higher Bachelor's+ shares tend to skew rental demand toward 1-BR/studio "single professional" and early-family product, while lower shares concentrate demand in service-occupation rent bands (30–60% AMI).
Demographic projections: age pyramid & senior pressure (DOLA/SDO)
County-level single-year-of-age estimates/forecasts used to illustrate aging pressure and household formation dynamics. For municipal/CDP selections, this uses the containing county as context.
Age pyramid
Senior growth pressure
—
Household Income Distribution
Distribution of households by income bracket — key indicator for affordable housing need stratification by AMI tier. Source: ACS DP03.
Methodology & Data Sources
This section updates as you change geographies and as cached datasets become available. All sources link to the primary publisher.
Primary Data Sources
Data refreshes automatically via GitHub Actions. Full data sources inventory · Data freshness status