Chapter 4.4 · The first of the month

Renting, affordability and eviction

45.6% of renter households with a computed burden spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2018 to 2022, against 20.8% of owner households, and the gap is widest at incomes between 30% and 80% of the area median family income.

Author: Vishal Singh
Affiliation: NYU Stern
Published: 9 October 2026

Of the renter households with a computed burden in the states and DC, 45.6% (95% CI 44.7% to 46.5%) spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2018 to 2022, against 20.8% (95% CI 20.1% to 21.5%) of owner households. The gap is widest at incomes between 30% and 80% of the area median family income and is not detectable above 80%, and giving renters the owners' mix of incomes would cut it from 24.8 (95% CI 24.2 to 25.3) to 3.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.2) points. The share of renters with a burden is 44.4% (95% CI 41.9% to 46.7%) in the least deprived tenth of census tracts on the Area Deprivation Index and 47.6% (95% CI 46.6% to 48.4%) in the most deprived tenth, and within a single county it is higher in the more deprived tracts.

The chapter reads the burden by tenure, county and tract, sets it beside the Fair Market Rents that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes for its housing voucher program, and then follows eviction filings in the cities where the Eviction Lab tracks them. Every comparison is between places or between groups of households, and none follows a household. Home values, tax-return incomes and the redlining grades are in Chapter 4.1, Home value, income and redlining, mortgage denials in Chapter 4.2, Mortgage denials and the earnings of workers in Chapter 4.3, Work, wages and access to jobs.

Renters are burdened more often than owners, and the gap sits in the middle of the income range

HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) files tabulate the American Community Survey for 2018 to 2022 by tenure, income and housing cost. A household has a cost burden when its housing costs exceed 30% of its income, a moderate burden when they run from 30% to 50% and a severe burden when they exceed 50%. Costs are rent and utilities for renters, and owner costs such as mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities for owners. The shares below divide by the households whose burden HUD computes, which leaves out households with no or negative income: 43.2 million renter and 80.8 million owner households in the tracts of the states and DC. The 1.0 million renter and 0.7 million owner households without a computed burden are all in the lowest income band. Renters are 35.2% (95% CI 33.7% to 36.8%) of these households. The file's 84,410 tracts include 1,051 with no households, which add nothing to the pooled shares and drop out of the tenth means below.

A moderate burden affects 22.4% (95% CI 22.1% to 22.7%) of renter households and 12.0% (95% CI 11.7% to 12.3%) of owner households, and a severe burden 23.2% (95% CI 22.6% to 23.8%) and 8.8% (95% CI 8.5% to 9.2%) (Figure 1). The renter share with a burden is 2.2 (95% CI 2.1 to 2.2) times the owner share, a gap of 24.8 (95% CI 24.2 to 25.3) points. In all, 19.7 million renter households spent more than 30% of their income on housing and 10.0 million spent more than 50%.

Figure 1

45.6% of renter households pay more than 30% of their income for housing, against 20.8% of owner households

Housing cost burden by tenure as HUD defines it, and by income relative to HUD's area median family income, 50 states and DC, 2018 to 2022

Of renter households, 23.2% pay more than 50% of their income for housing, against 8.8% of owner households

Percent of households by tenure with housing costs of 30% to 50% of income (moderate burden) and above 50% (severe burden), 50 states and DC, 2018 to 2022

Both segments are longer in the bar for renters. Each bar adds the moderate share to the severe share, so its end is the share above 30% of income: 45.6% of renter households and 20.8% of owner households. The denominator is the households whose burden HUD computes, which leaves out households with no or negative income.

Show data

Data for 45.6% of renter households pay more than 30% of their income for housing, against 20.8% of owner households, By tenure
level	share	tenure
Moderate burden	11.98	Owner households
Severe burden	8.82	Owner households
Moderate burden	22.39	Renter households
Severe burden	23.17	Renter households

The first tab splits the burden into HUD's moderate and severe levels, and the second shows that the gap between renters and owners is wide at incomes of 30% to 80% of the area median and absent above that. The first tab pools the 84,410 tracts of the states and DC, 1,051 of which have no households.Note: HUD counts a household as burdened when its housing costs exceed 30% of its income, and as severely burdened above 50%. Costs are rent and utilities for renters, and mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities for owners. The moderate segment is the burdened share minus the severe share.Note: The five income bands are HUD's: at or below 30% of its area median family income (HAMFI), a benchmark HUD sets for each area that differs from the Census median household income, then up to 50%, up to 80%, up to the area median and above it. Low-income households are the three lowest bands. Every share divides by households with a computed burden, which leaves out 1.0 million renter and 0.7 million owner households with no or negative income, all in the lowest band; the staged HUD percentage for low-income burdened households divides by all households and is not used.Note: The second tab reads the raw county table of HUD's Table 8 (Connecticut by planning region), which is the only source of the five bands, and its totals differ from the tract totals in the first tab by HUD's rounding (a few hundredths of a point). In the two highest bands the renter and owner shares are about equal, so the gap in the first tab reflects where renters and owners sit in the income range.Note: The shares are ratios of survey-based household counts that HUD rounds cell by cell; HUD publishes margins of error for the counts and none for the shares. The intervals in the second tab come from a bootstrap over counties (replicates and seed in the methods note) and do not include the survey's sampling error. The stacked bars in the first tab carry no interval.Note: Puerto Rico is left out of every figure in this chapter.Source: HUD CHAS (American Community Survey 2018-2022 special tabulation); shares pooled over tracts and weighted by households, survey-based estimates with no margin of error published for the shares

Income separates households more than tenure does. HUD measures income against its area median family income (HAMFI), a benchmark it sets for each area that differs from the Census median household income, and sorts households into five bands. The share with a burden runs from 83.9% (95% CI 83.3% to 84.6%) of renters at or below 30% of HAMFI to 5.3% (95% CI 4.8% to 5.9%) of renters in the highest band, and from 82.8% (95% CI 82.2% to 83.4%) to 5.5% (95% CI 5.1% to 5.9%) for owners (second tab of Figure 1).

The renter share minus the owner share is +1.2 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.9) points in the lowest band, +24.4 (95% CI 23.4 to 25.3) points between 30% and 50% of HAMFI and +12.0 (95% CI 10.8 to 13.2) points between 50% and 80%. In the two bands above 80% it is −0.5 (95% CI −1.4 to 0.4) and −0.2 (95% CI −0.6 to 0.2) points, and the intervals include zero. The gap in the totals therefore reflects where renters sit in the income range. 60.6% (95% CI 59.8% to 61.4%) of renter households with a computed burden have incomes at or below 80% of HAMFI, against 30.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 30.7%) of owner households, and 69.0% (95% CI 68.1% to 69.9%) of these low-income renters and 50.7% (95% CI 49.8% to 51.7%) of low-income owners have a burden. Low-income households are 91.8% (95% CI 91.2% to 92.4%) of burdened renter households and 73.8% (95% CI 72.8% to 74.7%) of burdened owner households.

Giving renters the owners' mix across the five bands would bring the renter share with a burden to 24.6% (95% CI 23.7% to 25.4%), which leaves a gap of 3.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.2) points against owners. That reweighting rearranges the shares and does not say what would happen to any household. HUD rounds every count and publishes margins of error for the counts but not for the shares, so the intervals in this chapter come from resampling counties and leave out the survey's own sampling error.

Renter burden by county

Of the 3,143 counties, 2,753 have at least 500 renter and 500 owner households with a computed burden, and they hold 99.8% of renter households. Counting each county once, the share of renters with a burden has a median of 37.9% and runs from 23.0% to 50.9% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of counties (Figure 2); the pooled national share of 45.6% counts each county in proportion to its renter households. In 175 of these counties the share of renter households with a burden is above 50%. Owners have a burden as often as renters, or more often, in only 31 counties.

Figure 2

Between the 5th and 95th percentiles of counties, the share of renter households paying more than 30% of income runs from 23.0% to 50.9%, with a median county at 37.9%

Percent of renter households with housing costs above 30% of income, counties of the 50 states and DC, 2018 to 2022

Loading county values

Renter households paying more than 30% of income (%), 2018 to 2022

No data (3,143 counties)

Select a class to show only those places.

Find a county

Hover or tap a county for its value, or search by name. Zoom with the buttons on the map, then drag to move it.

Counties toward the high end of the key have a larger share of renter households paying over 30% of income, and gray hatched counties have fewer than 500 renter or owner households with a computed burden. Pooled over its counties, renter burden is 53.3% in Florida and 50.7% in California, against 33.9% in South Dakota.Note: A county is drawn when it has at least 500 renter households and at least 500 owner households with a computed burden; 2,753 of 3,143 counties pass, and they hold 99.8% of the nation's renter households. A share in a county near the floor rests on a few hundred households and is uncertain by several points; HUD rounds every count and publishes no margin of error for the share.Note: Connecticut is drawn as its eight former counties, summed from the tract file because the county file is coded by planning region. Alaska is drawn. Puerto Rico is not drawn.Source: HUD CHAS (American Community Survey 2018-2022 special tabulation), county file; shares of renter households pooled within counties and weighted by households, survey-based estimates with no margin of error published for the shares

Pooled over its counties, the renter share with a burden is 53.3% (95% CI 50.4% to 55.4%) in Florida and 50.7% (95% CI 47.3% to 52.4%) in California, against 33.9% (95% CI 30.6% to 35.8%) in South Dakota. The map shows where renters spend a large share of their income and not whether rents or incomes account for it. The household floor matters for the tails, since a share in a county near it rests on a few hundred renter households and is uncertain by several points. With a floor of 100 households the 5th percentile is 19.2% and owners have a burden as often as renters in 106 counties, and with a floor of 1,000 the 5th percentile is 25.9% and the count is 11.

Renter burden has no linear trend across deprivation tenths nationally and rises with deprivation within counties

Ranking the 82,786 tracts that have an Area Deprivation Index into tenths, the share of renters with a burden is 44.4% (95% CI 41.9% to 46.7%) in the least deprived tenth and 47.6% (95% CI 46.6% to 48.4%) in the most deprived, and the means for the ten tenths stay within 3.6 points of each other (Figure 3). The slope across the nation is 0.0 (95% CI −0.3 to 0.3) points for each 10 percentile points of the index for renters, an interval that includes zero, and −0.8 (95% CI −1.0 to −0.5) points for owners. Owner burden falls from 25.5% (95% CI 23.7% to 27.2%) in the least deprived tenth to 18.3% (95% CI 17.9% to 18.7%) in the ninth and is 19.8% (95% CI 19.3% to 20.3%) in the most deprived. The 1,624 tracts with no index are left out.

Figure 3

Pooled across the nation, renter burden is 44.4% in the least deprived tenth of tracts and 47.6% in the most deprived, but within a county it rises by 2.3 points per 10 percentile points of the index

Share of households paying more than 30% of income by tenth of tracts on the Area Deprivation Index, for all households, for low-income households and relative to the county, 2018 to 2022

Renter burden is 44.4% in the least deprived tenth of tracts and 47.6% in the most deprived, while owner burden is 25.5% in the least deprived tenth and 18.3% in the ninth

Percent of households paying more than 30% of income by tenth of tracts on the Area Deprivation Index, pooled over tracts, 50 states and DC, 2018 to 2022

Share paying more than 30% of income (%)

The renter line stays within 3.6 points across the ten tenths with no linear trend, and the owner line is higher in the least deprived tenth than in the ninth and turns up in the most deprived tenth. Points are pooled shares with 95% intervals from a bootstrap over counties.

Show data

Data for Pooled across the nation, renter burden is 44.4% in the least deprived tenth of tracts and 47.6% in the most deprived, but within a county it rises by 2.3 points per 10 percentile points of the index, All households
conf_high	conf_low	decile	series	share	tracts
46.68	41.91	1	Renter households	44.45	8208
50.08	45	2	Renter households	47.68	8074
48.50	44.76	3	Renter households	46.65	8454
46.71	44.48	4	Renter households	45.61	8241
46.16	44.14	5	Renter households	45.17	8179
46.02	44.16	6	Renter households	45.12	8304
45.57	43.59	7	Renter households	44.64	8307
45.27	43.51	8	Renter households	44.42	8234
44.95	43.26	9	Renter households	44.13	8350
48.42	46.63	10	Renter households	47.58	8207
27.22	23.74	1	Owner households	25.55	8189
25.42	22.31	2	Owner households	23.87	8070
22.64	20.98	3	Owner households	21.79	8460
21.70	20.36	4	Owner households	21.03	8229
20.85	19.59	5	Owner households	20.20	8147
20	18.90	6	Owner households	19.45	8249
19.56	18.45	7	Owner households	18.97	8249
18.89	17.95	8	Owner households	18.42	8193
18.74	17.90	9	Owner households	18.31	8329
20.28	19.25	10	Owner households	19.78	8212

The first tab pools tracts across the nation, the second restricts to low-income households, and the third subtracts each county's own level. The pooled renter line has no linear trend, it rises with deprivation once each tract is compared with its own county, and between counties the slope runs the other way.Note: The Area Deprivation Index is built partly from median home value, median gross rent and median monthly mortgage cost, so it ranks tracts with costly housing as less deprived and a burden gradient against it is partly mechanical. The index also understates deprivation in high-cost cities. Tenths hold near-equal numbers of tracts (tracts with equal ranks stay in one tenth), not equal numbers of households.Note: 82,786 tracts have an index and 1,624 do not and are left out. Each point weights tracts by the households behind the share, and a tract share rests on a few households in a small tract.Note: In the third tab the county level is the household-weighted mean of the tract shares of the tenure across the county's tracts that have an index, so a county with one such tract adds no deviation. The slope is the within-county slope of the tract share on the index national rank with a separate baseline for each county, per 10 percentile points.Source: HUD CHAS (American Community Survey 2018-2022 special tabulation) and Area Deprivation Index 2023 (built on ACS 2019-2023); shares pooled over tracts and weighted by households, bootstrap over counties, survey-based estimates with no margin of error published for the shares

Among low-income households alone, the share with a burden is lower where the index shows more deprivation. For renters it falls from 75.3% (95% CI 72.6% to 78.1%) in the least deprived tenth to 62.5% (95% CI 61.6% to 63.3%) in the most deprived, and for owners from 65.9% (95% CI 64.0% to 68.0%) to 37.6% (95% CI 37.0% to 38.1%).

The index is built partly from median home value, median gross rent and the monthly mortgage cost, so it ranks tracts with costly housing as less deprived (Chapter 10.2, The anatomy of a deprivation index shows how far home value alone orders it). Costly housing also means a larger burden at a given income, so a gradient of burden against the index is partly mechanical, and the index understates deprivation in high-cost cities. A tract share is also noisy where a tract has few renter households, which is why each tenth pools the households behind its tracts.

Comparing each tract with its own county removes the differences between counties. Within a county, the renter share with a burden is higher by 2.3 (95% CI 2.1 to 2.4) points for each 10 percentile points of the index, and the owner share by 0.9 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0). In the most deprived tenth a tract's renter share differs from its county's level by +5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.5) points, and in the least deprived tenth by −3.1 (95% CI −4.0 to −2.3) points; for owners the differences are +2.0 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.3) and −1.2 (95% CI −1.6 to −0.9). Between counties the slope runs the other way, at −1.1 (95% CI −1.4 to −0.8) points per 10 percentile points for renters and −1.6 (95% CI −1.9 to −1.4) for owners, so the national line has no slope where the within-county and between-county patterns offset each other. The data show the pattern and not its reason. Rents and incomes both differ between counties, and the index counts both.

Renter burden is higher where the rent standard takes more of the area's income

HUD publishes a Fair Market Rent each fiscal year for each of its areas, a monthly rent standard by bedroom count for its housing voucher program. The file used here is the release for fiscal year 2025, October 2024 to September 2025, with one value for each area, so every county in a metropolitan area shares it and a difference between two of them is not a difference in rent. This section therefore compares areas made of whole counties: 2,139 areas with 2,696 counties and 94.4% of the nation's renter households. New England is left out because the file lists towns there, which a county cannot be matched to.

Weighting areas by their renter households, the two-bedroom rent standard is $1,703 a month at the median and runs from $933 to $2,684 between the 5th and 95th percentiles of areas. A year of it is 23.7% of the area's median household income at the median, and the share runs from 17.6% to 35.9% between the 5th and 95th percentiles. Counting each area once, the median share is 19.9%. The income is the household-weighted mean of the counties' ACS medians for 2019 to 2023 and covers all households, not only renters, so the share is not the share of any renter's income.

Across areas the renter share with a burden moves with the rent share. Weighting areas by their renter households, the correlation is +0.70 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) and each point of rent share goes with 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.93) points of renter burden (Figure 4). Counting each area once, the correlation is +0.36 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.47) and the slope 0.71 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.94). Both measures are a cost over an income, so they move together partly by construction. The renter share is 33.9% (95% CI 32.1% to 35.8%) in the tenth of areas with the lowest rent share and 49.9% (95% CI 45.9% to 51.4%) in the tenth with the highest.

Figure 4

Renter burden is higher in areas where the two-bedroom Fair Market Rent takes a larger share of the median household income, a renter-weighted correlation of +0.70 across 2,139 areas

Renter households paying more than 30% of income (CHAS 2018-2022) against a year of the two-bedroom Fair Market Rent (fiscal year 2025) as a percent of the area's median household income (ACS 2019-2023), HUD FMR areas

Renter burden is 33.9% in the lowest tenth of areas by the rent standard's share of median household income and 49.9% in the highest

Loading data

Dots rise from left to right, and the markers for tenths of areas run from 33.9% in the lowest tenth to 49.9% in the highest. The dashed line is the renter-weighted least-squares line across all 2,139 areas.

The first tab shows that areas with a larger rent share of income have a larger renter share with a burden, and the second sorts areas by median household income and shows renter burden higher in the highest fifth than in the lowest. Each point is one FMR area made of whole counties; the markers are renter-weighted means for tenths of areas with 95% intervals from a bootstrap over states. The correlation weights areas by their renter households and is +0.36 when each area counts once; both variables are a cost over an income, so they move together partly by construction.Note: Fair Market Rents are monthly rent standards for the housing voucher program. HUD sets one value for each FMR area and applies it to every county in the area, so counties of one metropolitan area share a value and this chapter compares areas, not counties. The file is one release, for fiscal year 2025; the incomes are ACS 2019-2023 in 2023 dollars and the burden is CHAS 2018-2022, so the three describe different years and the level of the rent share is not exact.Note: The area income is the household-weighted mean of the median household incomes of its counties, a mean of medians and not the median of the area's households. It covers all households, not renters, so the rent share of the income of renters is higher than the share plotted.Note: An area enters when its counties are whole in the file and hold at least 500 renter households with a computed burden. New England areas are towns that counties cannot be matched to and are left out, which covers Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; the 2,139 areas hold 94.4% of the nation's renter households.Note: The scatter is every area (no sample); the fitted line is the renter-weighted least-squares line, with a slope of 0.72 points of renter burden per point of rent share. Fifths and tenths hold near-equal numbers of areas, not equal numbers of renters.Source: HUD Fair Market Rents, fiscal year 2025, with ACS 2019-2023 county median household incomes and HUD CHAS 2018-2022 renter burden; renter-weighted, one rent standard per FMR area

Areas with higher nominal incomes do not have lower renter burden. Ranking the areas by median household income into fifths, the share of renters with a burden is 39.1% (95% CI 37.6% to 40.9%) in the lowest fifth, where the median household income averages $45,717, and 46.9% (95% CI 44.8% to 48.4%) in the highest fifth, where it averages $91,563. The rent standard takes 21.5% (95% CI 20.5% to 22.4%) of income in the middle fifth, against 24.4% (95% CI 23.4% to 25.3%) in the lowest fifth and 26.1% (95% CI 23.0% to 28.3%) in the highest. A comparison of places at the same dollar income would miss that difference in the price of housing. The rent standard is for fiscal year 2025, later than the burden and the incomes, so the comparison sets places against one another at one set of prices and is not a statement about a single year.

Eviction filings against the pre-pandemic baseline

The Eviction Lab's Eviction Tracking System counts eviction court filings by month and census tract in 35 cities and metro areas, which it calls sites. Filings are landlord petitions in court, not completed evictions, and the sites are the places the Eviction Lab tracks, not the nation. The tracts in the index below hold 14.9% of the nation's renter households. 41.9% (95% CI 39.4% to 43.8%) of the households in them rent, against 34.2% (95% CI 32.6% to 36.0%) elsewhere, and 48.5% (95% CI 46.8% to 50.4%) of their renters have a burden, against 45.1% (95% CI 44.1% to 46.2%) elsewhere, so no filing count or index in this section describes the rest of the country.

The index divides a tract's filings in a month by the filings that the Eviction Lab records for the same calendar month before the pandemic (the baseline), summed over tracts. An index of 1.00 means filings at the baseline. The panel is the 10,243 tracts of 32 sites that have a baseline and an observation in each of the 72 months from January 2020 to December 2025. Atlanta and the Other Oregon Counties site have no baseline, and Greenville, South Carolina, has no tract observed in every month, so the three are left out.

The pooled index was 1.01 in January 2020, fell to 0.09 in April 2020, which is 91% below the baseline, and stayed below the baseline until January 2022 (Figure 5). It first rose above the baseline in February 2022, reached 1.37 in March 2023, which is 37% above the baseline, and averaged 1.17 over 2023. The shaded band marks the federal moratoria, from the CARES Act in March 2020 to the Supreme Court's ruling against the CDC order in August 2021.[1] Federal protection was not continuous, and states and cities set their own rules, so the band is a guide to timing and not a measure of coverage.

Figure 5

Eviction filings fell to 0.09 times their pre-pandemic level in April 2020, stayed below it until early 2022 and peaked at 1.37 times that level in March 2023

Monthly eviction filings divided by the pre-pandemic baseline for the same calendar month, summed over tracts in cities and metro areas the Eviction Lab tracks, January 2020 to December 2025

Filings divided by the pre-pandemic baseline (1 = baseline)

Show data

Data for Eviction filings fell to 0.09 times their pre-pandemic level in April 2020, stayed below it until early 2022 and peaked at 1.37 times that level in March 2023
baseline	filings	index	month	x
42272.4	42872	1.01	2020-01	2020
34769.3	37665	1.08	2020-02	2020.1
31946.6	20221	0.633	2020-03	2020.2
34266.3	2977	0.087	2020-04	2020.3
38876.2	5210	0.134	2020-05	2020.3
42054.2	11163	0.265	2020-06	2020.4
42511.8	11588	0.273	2020-07	2020.5
43972.6	18092	0.411	2020-08	2020.6
41377	20824	0.503	2020-09	2020.7
41585.2	23256	0.559	2020-10	2020.8
36142.7	23371	0.647	2020-11	2020.8
36183.2	24355	0.673	2020-12	2020.9
42272.4	21712	0.514	2021-01	2021
34551.6	18147	0.525	2021-02	2021.1
31946.6	23346	0.731	2021-03	2021.2
34266.3	18309	0.534	2021-04	2021.3
38876.2	18073	0.465	2021-05	2021.3
42054.2	23690	0.563	2021-06	2021.4
42511.8	24160	0.568	2021-07	2021.5
43972.6	25512	0.580	2021-08	2021.6
41377	30486	0.737	2021-09	2021.7
41585.2	32950	0.792	2021-10	2021.8
36142.7	30066	0.832	2021-11	2021.8
36183.2	30786	0.851	2021-12	2021.9
42272.4	37251	0.881	2022-01	2022
34551.6	37192	1.08	2022-02	2022.1
31946.6	40492	1.27	2022-03	2022.2
34266.3	36033	1.05	2022-04	2022.3
38876.2	38922	1.00	2022-05	2022.3
42054.2	43885	1.04	2022-06	2022.4
42511.8	45073	1.06	2022-07	2022.5
43972.6	50594	1.15	2022-08	2022.6
41377	46815	1.13	2022-09	2022.7
41585.2	46443	1.12	2022-10	2022.8
36142.7	42892	1.19	2022-11	2022.8
36183.2	44738	1.24	2022-12	2022.9
42272.4	49002	1.16	2023-01	2023
34551.6	43487	1.26	2023-02	2023.1
31946.6	43843	1.37	2023-03	2023.2
34266.3	38975	1.14	2023-04	2023.3
38876.2	46373	1.19	2023-05	2023.3
42054.2	47463	1.13	2023-06	2023.4
42511.8	45985	1.08	2023-07	2023.5
43972.6	51021	1.16	2023-08	2023.6
41377	45813	1.11	2023-09	2023.7
41585.2	49261	1.19	2023-10	2023.8
36142.7	42908	1.19	2023-11	2023.8
36183.2	41475	1.15	2023-12	2023.9
42272.4	48898	1.16	2024-01	2024
34769.3	45467	1.31	2024-02	2024.1
31946.6	37506	1.17	2024-03	2024.2
34266.3	41059	1.20	2024-04	2024.3
38876.2	42532	1.09	2024-05	2024.3
42054.2	43694	1.04	2024-06	2024.4
42511.8	48633	1.14	2024-07	2024.5
43972.6	46965	1.07	2024-08	2024.6
41377	44394	1.07	2024-09	2024.7
41585.2	42052	1.01	2024-10	2024.8
36142.7	39671	1.10	2024-11	2024.8
36183.2	42537	1.18	2024-12	2024.9
42272.4	46910	1.11	2025-01	2025
34551.6	41394	1.20	2025-02	2025.1
31946.6	38220	1.20	2025-03	2025.2
34266.3	38359	1.12	2025-04	2025.3
38876.2	42221	1.09	2025-05	2025.3
42054.2	42601	1.01	2025-06	2025.4
42511.8	47242	1.11	2025-07	2025.5
43972.6	44216	1.01	2025-08	2025.6
41377	44694	1.08	2025-09	2025.7
41585.2	45124	1.08	2025-10	2025.8
36142.7	36607	1.01	2025-11	2025.8
36183.2	40997	1.13	2025-12	2025.9

The line sits at about the baseline in January 2020, drops to its minimum in April 2020, stays below the baseline through the federal moratoria and rises above it in February 2022. It plots the ratio of filings to the baseline for the 10,243 tracts in the panel; the shaded band marks the federal moratoria from the CARES Act in March 2020 to the Supreme Court ruling against the CDC order in August 2021.Note: The index is a ratio of sums: filings summed over the tract-months of the panel divided by the baseline summed over the same tract-months. 1 means filings equal the baseline for the same calendar month before the pandemic. Filings are landlord petitions, not completed evictions.Note: The panel is the 10,243 tracts of 32 sites that have a baseline and an observation in each of the 72 months. Atlanta and Other Oregon Counties have no baseline, and Greenville, South Carolina, has no tract observed in every month, so the three are left out; the file has 35 sites in all. The months of 2026 are incomplete and are not shown.Note: The band runs from March 2020 to August 2021. Federal protection was not continuous: the CARES Act moratorium ended in the summer of 2020 and the CDC order began in September 2020, and states and cities set their own rules. The counts are full counts of filings in the participating sites, so the line has no sampling interval.Source: Eviction Lab Eviction Tracking System, 2020-2025, balanced panel of tracts with a baseline; full counts of court filings, not weighted

The pooled series hides differences between neighborhoods. The Eviction Lab classifies each tract by the racial or ethnic group that makes up a majority of its residents in the American Community Survey for 2015 to 2019, which says nothing about the race of any tenant. Black and white mean non-Hispanic, and a fourth group holds tracts where another group or no group is a majority. 236 panel tracts with no classification are left out of the comparison by group. In 2023 the index was 0.98 in majority-Black tracts, 1.11 in majority-Hispanic tracts and 1.28 in majority-white tracts (Figure 6). Since March 2021 the line for majority-Black tracts is at or near the lowest of the four groups in every month, and from 2024 the line for majority-white tracts is at or near the highest. Within the 23 sites that have at least 5 majority-Black and 5 majority-white tracts, the 2023 index is lower in majority-Black tracts than in majority-white tracts in 21 of them.

The index compares each group with its own past, and the pasts differ. Before the pandemic, filings ran at 12.7 per hundred renter households per year in majority-Black tracts and 4.2 in majority-white tracts, a ratio of 3.0. In 2023 the rates were 12.5 and 5.4. Filings in majority-Black tracts returned to about their baseline, which was already high, and filings in majority-white tracts rose above a lower baseline. Hepburn, Louis and Desmond found the highest rates of eviction filing among Black renters in court records for 2012 to 2016.[2]

Figure 6

Eviction filings in majority-Black tracts ran at 0.98 times their baseline in 2023 and in majority-white tracts at 1.28 times, from baseline rates per renter household that differed by a factor of 3.0

Eviction filings against the pre-pandemic baseline by the racial majority of the tract, and filings per 100 renter households per year before the pandemic and in 2023

Since March 2021 the filing index is at or near its lowest in majority-Black tracts in every month, and from 2024 it is at or near its highest in majority-white tracts

Monthly filings divided by each group's pre-pandemic baseline, by racial majority of the tract, January 2020 to December 2025

Filings divided by the group's pre-pandemic baseline (1 = baseline)

All four lines fall together in spring 2020; since March 2021 the line for majority-Black tracts is at or near the lowest of the four in every month, and from 2024 the line for majority-white tracts is at or near the highest.

Show data

Data for Eviction filings in majority-Black tracts ran at 0.98 times their baseline in 2023 and in majority-white tracts at 1.28 times, from baseline rates per renter household that differed by a factor of 3.0, Against the baseline
group	index	month	tracts	x
Majority-Black tracts	0.964	2020-01	1342	2020
Majority-Black tracts	1.02	2020-02	1342	2020.1
Majority-Black tracts	0.566	2020-03	1342	2020.2
Majority-Black tracts	0.074	2020-04	1342	2020.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.137	2020-05	1342	2020.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.296	2020-06	1342	2020.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.306	2020-07	1342	2020.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.405	2020-08	1342	2020.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.515	2020-09	1342	2020.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.521	2020-10	1342	2020.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.551	2020-11	1342	2020.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.661	2020-12	1342	2020.9
Majority-Black tracts	0.477	2021-01	1342	2021
Majority-Black tracts	0.527	2021-02	1342	2021.1
Majority-Black tracts	0.689	2021-03	1342	2021.2
Majority-Black tracts	0.498	2021-04	1342	2021.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.414	2021-05	1342	2021.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.467	2021-06	1342	2021.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.472	2021-07	1342	2021.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.497	2021-08	1342	2021.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.631	2021-09	1342	2021.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.712	2021-10	1342	2021.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.755	2021-11	1342	2021.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.791	2021-12	1342	2021.9
Majority-Black tracts	0.801	2022-01	1342	2022
Majority-Black tracts	0.932	2022-02	1342	2022.1
Majority-Black tracts	1.10	2022-03	1342	2022.2
Majority-Black tracts	0.908	2022-04	1342	2022.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.864	2022-05	1342	2022.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.876	2022-06	1342	2022.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.891	2022-07	1342	2022.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.969	2022-08	1342	2022.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.951	2022-09	1342	2022.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.939	2022-10	1342	2022.8
Majority-Black tracts	1.04	2022-11	1342	2022.8
Majority-Black tracts	1.05	2022-12	1342	2022.9
Majority-Black tracts	0.992	2023-01	1342	2023
Majority-Black tracts	1.09	2023-02	1342	2023.1
Majority-Black tracts	1.17	2023-03	1342	2023.2
Majority-Black tracts	0.973	2023-04	1342	2023.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.964	2023-05	1342	2023.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.953	2023-06	1342	2023.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.871	2023-07	1342	2023.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.974	2023-08	1342	2023.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.916	2023-09	1342	2023.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.999	2023-10	1342	2023.8
Majority-Black tracts	1.01	2023-11	1342	2023.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.965	2023-12	1342	2023.9
Majority-Black tracts	0.972	2024-01	1342	2024
Majority-Black tracts	1.13	2024-02	1342	2024.1
Majority-Black tracts	0.920	2024-03	1342	2024.2
Majority-Black tracts	1.01	2024-04	1342	2024.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.906	2024-05	1342	2024.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.880	2024-06	1342	2024.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.962	2024-07	1342	2024.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.868	2024-08	1342	2024.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.841	2024-09	1342	2024.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.833	2024-10	1342	2024.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.919	2024-11	1342	2024.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.933	2024-12	1342	2024.9
Majority-Black tracts	0.903	2025-01	1342	2025
Majority-Black tracts	0.987	2025-02	1342	2025.1
Majority-Black tracts	0.992	2025-03	1342	2025.2
Majority-Black tracts	0.910	2025-04	1342	2025.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.875	2025-05	1342	2025.3
Majority-Black tracts	0.853	2025-06	1342	2025.4
Majority-Black tracts	0.958	2025-07	1342	2025.5
Majority-Black tracts	0.834	2025-08	1342	2025.6
Majority-Black tracts	0.883	2025-09	1342	2025.7
Majority-Black tracts	0.902	2025-10	1342	2025.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.798	2025-11	1342	2025.8
Majority-Black tracts	0.954	2025-12	1342	2025.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.987	2020-01	1591	2020
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.10	2020-02	1591	2020.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.662	2020-03	1591	2020.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.118	2020-04	1591	2020.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.171	2020-05	1591	2020.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.310	2020-06	1591	2020.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.292	2020-07	1591	2020.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.431	2020-08	1591	2020.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.478	2020-09	1591	2020.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.517	2020-10	1591	2020.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.628	2020-11	1591	2020.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.574	2020-12	1591	2020.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.492	2021-01	1591	2021
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.471	2021-02	1591	2021.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.700	2021-03	1591	2021.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.580	2021-04	1591	2021.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.492	2021-05	1591	2021.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.579	2021-06	1591	2021.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.593	2021-07	1591	2021.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.597	2021-08	1591	2021.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.762	2021-09	1591	2021.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.816	2021-10	1591	2021.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.833	2021-11	1591	2021.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.880	2021-12	1591	2021.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.885	2022-01	1591	2022
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.16	2022-02	1591	2022.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.40	2022-03	1591	2022.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.12	2022-04	1591	2022.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.01	2022-05	1591	2022.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.01	2022-06	1591	2022.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.10	2022-07	1591	2022.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.10	2022-08	1591	2022.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.18	2022-09	1591	2022.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.07	2022-10	1591	2022.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.13	2022-11	1591	2022.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.22	2022-12	1591	2022.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.08	2023-01	1591	2023
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.19	2023-02	1591	2023.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.35	2023-03	1591	2023.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.17	2023-04	1591	2023.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.17	2023-05	1591	2023.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.01	2023-06	1591	2023.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.06	2023-07	1591	2023.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.09	2023-08	1591	2023.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.05	2023-09	1591	2023.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.07	2023-10	1591	2023.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.08	2023-11	1591	2023.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.05	2023-12	1591	2023.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.06	2024-01	1591	2024
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.21	2024-02	1591	2024.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.09	2024-03	1591	2024.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.13	2024-04	1591	2024.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.04	2024-05	1591	2024.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.916	2024-06	1591	2024.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.07	2024-07	1591	2024.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.987	2024-08	1591	2024.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.05	2024-09	1591	2024.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.963	2024-10	1591	2024.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.987	2024-11	1591	2024.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.04	2024-12	1591	2024.9
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.993	2025-01	1591	2025
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.06	2025-02	1591	2025.1
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.12	2025-03	1591	2025.2
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.993	2025-04	1591	2025.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.01	2025-05	1591	2025.3
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.865	2025-06	1591	2025.4
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.988	2025-07	1591	2025.5
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.886	2025-08	1591	2025.6
Majority-Hispanic tracts	1.00	2025-09	1591	2025.7
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.937	2025-10	1591	2025.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.898	2025-11	1591	2025.8
Majority-Hispanic tracts	0.997	2025-12	1591	2025.9
No majority or other group	1.06	2020-01	2155	2020
No majority or other group	1.14	2020-02	2155	2020.1
No majority or other group	0.684	2020-03	2155	2020.2
No majority or other group	0.070	2020-04	2155	2020.3
No majority or other group	0.112	2020-05	2155	2020.3
No majority or other group	0.231	2020-06	2155	2020.4
No majority or other group	0.227	2020-07	2155	2020.5
No majority or other group	0.383	2020-08	2155	2020.6
No majority or other group	0.481	2020-09	2155	2020.7
No majority or other group	0.589	2020-10	2155	2020.8
No majority or other group	0.735	2020-11	2155	2020.8
No majority or other group	0.702	2020-12	2155	2020.9
No majority or other group	0.542	2021-01	2155	2021
No majority or other group	0.546	2021-02	2155	2021.1
No majority or other group	0.777	2021-03	2155	2021.2
No majority or other group	0.541	2021-04	2155	2021.3
No majority or other group	0.469	2021-05	2155	2021.3
No majority or other group	0.605	2021-06	2155	2021.4
No majority or other group	0.605	2021-07	2155	2021.5
No majority or other group	0.599	2021-08	2155	2021.6
No majority or other group	0.787	2021-09	2155	2021.7
No majority or other group	0.830	2021-10	2155	2021.8
No majority or other group	0.873	2021-11	2155	2021.8
No majority or other group	0.862	2021-12	2155	2021.9
No majority or other group	0.934	2022-01	2155	2022
No majority or other group	1.19	2022-02	2155	2022.1
No majority or other group	1.43	2022-03	2155	2022.2
No majority or other group	1.12	2022-04	2155	2022.3
No majority or other group	1.09	2022-05	2155	2022.3
No majority or other group	1.16	2022-06	2155	2022.4
No majority or other group	1.20	2022-07	2155	2022.5
No majority or other group	1.29	2022-08	2155	2022.6
No majority or other group	1.21	2022-09	2155	2022.7
No majority or other group	1.19	2022-10	2155	2022.8
No majority or other group	1.27	2022-11	2155	2022.8
No majority or other group	1.32	2022-12	2155	2022.9
No majority or other group	1.26	2023-01	2155	2023
No majority or other group	1.37	2023-02	2155	2023.1
No majority or other group	1.52	2023-03	2155	2023.2
No majority or other group	1.25	2023-04	2155	2023.3
No majority or other group	1.33	2023-05	2155	2023.3
No majority or other group	1.21	2023-06	2155	2023.4
No majority or other group	1.21	2023-07	2155	2023.5
No majority or other group	1.25	2023-08	2155	2023.6
No majority or other group	1.21	2023-09	2155	2023.7
No majority or other group	1.27	2023-10	2155	2023.8
No majority or other group	1.25	2023-11	2155	2023.8
No majority or other group	1.18	2023-12	2155	2023.9
No majority or other group	1.24	2024-01	2155	2024
No majority or other group	1.34	2024-02	2155	2024.1
No majority or other group	1.30	2024-03	2155	2024.2
No majority or other group	1.25	2024-04	2155	2024.3
No majority or other group	1.17	2024-05	2155	2024.3
No majority or other group	1.11	2024-06	2155	2024.4
No majority or other group	1.21	2024-07	2155	2024.5
No majority or other group	1.13	2024-08	2155	2024.6
No majority or other group	1.15	2024-09	2155	2024.7
No majority or other group	1.03	2024-10	2155	2024.8
No majority or other group	1.13	2024-11	2155	2024.8
No majority or other group	1.21	2024-12	2155	2024.9
No majority or other group	1.17	2025-01	2155	2025
No majority or other group	1.27	2025-02	2155	2025.1
No majority or other group	1.29	2025-03	2155	2025.2
No majority or other group	1.16	2025-04	2155	2025.3
No majority or other group	1.14	2025-05	2155	2025.3
No majority or other group	1.06	2025-06	2155	2025.4
No majority or other group	1.12	2025-07	2155	2025.5
No majority or other group	1.04	2025-08	2155	2025.6
No majority or other group	1.11	2025-09	2155	2025.7
No majority or other group	1.13	2025-10	2155	2025.8
No majority or other group	1.06	2025-11	2155	2025.8
No majority or other group	1.12	2025-12	2155	2025.9
Majority-white tracts	1.01	2020-01	4919	2020
Majority-white tracts	1.06	2020-02	4919	2020.1
Majority-white tracts	0.618	2020-03	4919	2020.2
Majority-white tracts	0.095	2020-04	4919	2020.3
Majority-white tracts	0.136	2020-05	4919	2020.3
Majority-white tracts	0.252	2020-06	4919	2020.4
Majority-white tracts	0.270	2020-07	4919	2020.5
Majority-white tracts	0.428	2020-08	4919	2020.6
Majority-white tracts	0.532	2020-09	4919	2020.7
Majority-white tracts	0.579	2020-10	4919	2020.8
Majority-white tracts	0.640	2020-11	4919	2020.8
Majority-white tracts	0.687	2020-12	4919	2020.9
Majority-white tracts	0.526	2021-01	4919	2021
Majority-white tracts	0.531	2021-02	4919	2021.1
Majority-white tracts	0.739	2021-03	4919	2021.2
Majority-white tracts	0.550	2021-04	4919	2021.3
Majority-white tracts	0.497	2021-05	4919	2021.3
Majority-white tracts	0.604	2021-06	4919	2021.4
Majority-white tracts	0.612	2021-07	4919	2021.5
Majority-white tracts	0.643	2021-08	4919	2021.6
Majority-white tracts	0.781	2021-09	4919	2021.7
Majority-white tracts	0.817	2021-10	4919	2021.8
Majority-white tracts	0.862	2021-11	4919	2021.8
Majority-white tracts	0.871	2021-12	4919	2021.9
Majority-white tracts	0.892	2022-01	4919	2022
Majority-white tracts	1.04	2022-02	4919	2022.1
Majority-white tracts	1.19	2022-03	4919	2022.2
Majority-white tracts	1.09	2022-04	4919	2022.3
Majority-white tracts	1.04	2022-05	4919	2022.3
Majority-white tracts	1.11	2022-06	4919	2022.4
Majority-white tracts	1.06	2022-07	4919	2022.5
Majority-white tracts	1.20	2022-08	4919	2022.6
Majority-white tracts	1.21	2022-09	4919	2022.7
Majority-white tracts	1.23	2022-10	4919	2022.8
Majority-white tracts	1.26	2022-11	4919	2022.8
Majority-white tracts	1.30	2022-12	4919	2022.9
Majority-white tracts	1.26	2023-01	4919	2023
Majority-white tracts	1.31	2023-02	4919	2023.1
Majority-white tracts	1.40	2023-03	4919	2023.2
Majority-white tracts	1.14	2023-04	4919	2023.3
Majority-white tracts	1.29	2023-05	4919	2023.3
Majority-white tracts	1.28	2023-06	4919	2023.4
Majority-white tracts	1.18	2023-07	4919	2023.5
Majority-white tracts	1.29	2023-08	4919	2023.6
Majority-white tracts	1.22	2023-09	4919	2023.7
Majority-white tracts	1.33	2023-10	4919	2023.8
Majority-white tracts	1.33	2023-11	4919	2023.8
Majority-white tracts	1.32	2023-12	4919	2023.9
Majority-white tracts	1.30	2024-01	4919	2024
Majority-white tracts	1.50	2024-02	4919	2024.1
Majority-white tracts	1.33	2024-03	4919	2024.2
Majority-white tracts	1.37	2024-04	4919	2024.3
Majority-white tracts	1.23	2024-05	4919	2024.3
Majority-white tracts	1.22	2024-06	4919	2024.4
Majority-white tracts	1.30	2024-07	4919	2024.5
Majority-white tracts	1.25	2024-08	4919	2024.6
Majority-white tracts	1.24	2024-09	4919	2024.7
Majority-white tracts	1.20	2024-10	4919	2024.8
Majority-white tracts	1.29	2024-11	4919	2024.8
Majority-white tracts	1.43	2024-12	4919	2024.9
Majority-white tracts	1.31	2025-01	4919	2025
Majority-white tracts	1.40	2025-02	4919	2025.1
Majority-white tracts	1.34	2025-03	4919	2025.2
Majority-white tracts	1.35	2025-04	4919	2025.3
Majority-white tracts	1.29	2025-05	4919	2025.3
Majority-white tracts	1.23	2025-06	4919	2025.4
Majority-white tracts	1.32	2025-07	4919	2025.5
Majority-white tracts	1.22	2025-08	4919	2025.6
Majority-white tracts	1.29	2025-09	4919	2025.7
Majority-white tracts	1.31	2025-10	4919	2025.8
Majority-white tracts	1.23	2025-11	4919	2025.8
Majority-white tracts	1.38	2025-12	4919	2025.9

The first tab shows the ratio of filings to each group's own baseline, which runs at or near the lowest for majority-Black tracts; the second tab shows the level, where majority-Black tracts are highest in both periods. The groups are the Eviction Lab's classification of each tract by the racial or ethnic group that makes up a majority of its residents (ACS 2015 to 2019), and the fourth group holds tracts where another group or no group is a majority; they say nothing about the race of any tenant.Note: Race is the Eviction Lab's tract classification by the group that makes up a majority of residents in the ACS for 2015 to 2019 (Black and White are non-Hispanic, Hispanic is of any race; the fourth group is another majority or none) and is missing for 236 panel tracts, which are left out of this figure. The index uses each group's own baseline, so it measures change from that group's past and does not compare the groups' filing rates.Note: Filing rates divide filings in the group's tracts by renter households (ACS 2019-2023 households times one minus the homeownership rate), so the numerator and the denominator describe different years. Filings can repeat at one address, so a rate of filings per household is not a share of households.Note: Hepburn, Louis and Desmond report the highest filing rates among Black renters in court records for 2012 to 2016, which is consistent with the baseline rates in the second tab.Source: Eviction Lab Eviction Tracking System, 2020-2025, and ACS 2019-2023 renter households; full counts of court filings, not weighted

Ranking the panel tracts that have an Area Deprivation Index by deprivation, the index over 2022 to 2025 is 1.48 in the least deprived tenth and 0.89 in the most deprived tenth, the reverse of the order that a gradient in distress would suggest. The least deprived tenth had a baseline of 11 filings per tract per year and the most deprived tenth 88, so a small number of added filings moves a low-baseline tract's index by a large ratio. The index shows where filings rose against the past, not where households face the most eviction.

Across the 32 sites in the panel, the index for 2023 to 2025 has a median of 1.11 and runs from 0.66 to 1.48 between the 5th and 95th percentiles of sites (Figure 7). Portland is highest, at 1.84, and Philadelphia is among the lowest, at 0.62. These data do not say why. Local rules, court practice, rental assistance and the way filings are recorded differ by site.

Figure 7

From 2023 to 2025 filings ran from 0.62 times the baseline in Philadelphia to 1.84 times in Portland, with a median site at 1.11 times

Eviction filings divided by the pre-pandemic baseline, January 2023 to December 2025, by site in the balanced panel of the Eviction Tracking System

Show data

Data for From 2023 to 2025 filings ran from 0.62 times the baseline in Philadelphia to 1.84 times in Portland, with a median site at 1.11 times
filings_per_year	index	site	tracts
13046	0.619	Philadelphia, PA	408
5381	0.649	Cleveland, OH	160
7559	0.673	Wilmington, DE	145
9703	0.674	Charleston, SC	99
8672	0.800	Albuquerque, NM	176
10719	0.830	Milwaukee, WI	302
24977	0.866	Indianapolis, IN	253
4366	0.891	New Orleans, LA	183
5632	0.893	Providence, RI	145
2730	0.928	South Bend, IN	82
8094	0.954	Palm Beach	373
3885	0.975	Bridgeport, CT	227
2817	0.983	Southwest Oregon, OR	158
12838	1.00	Cincinnati, OH	226
6269	1.05	Hartford, CT	235
18730	1.07	Tampa, FL	610
16885	1.15	St Louis, MO	340
10646	1.18	Kansas City, MO	227
48055	1.19	Dallas, TX	645
14316	1.20	Jacksonville, FL	219
22161	1.21	Columbus, OH	328
45697	1.23	Fort Worth, TX	642
16262	1.26	Miami	707
3152	1.27	Tacoma, WA	193
78233	1.34	Houston, TX	1218
49301	1.35	Las Vegas, NV	535
29057	1.37	Memphis, TN	249
2157	1.38	Gainesville, FL	58
14062	1.38	Nashville, TN	174
2402	1.39	Eugene, OR	93
12570	1.59	Minneapolis-Saint Paul, MN	472
15492	1.84	Portland, OR	361

Sites fall on both sides of the dashed line at the baseline, and between the 5th and 95th percentiles of sites the index runs from 0.66 to 1.48. Each dot is the ratio of filings to the baseline summed over the site's panel tracts, and the number of tracts is in the tooltip.Note: The index compares a site with its own past, so it does not rank sites by how many households face eviction. Sites differ in local rules, court practice, rental assistance and how filings are recorded, and these data do not separate those.Note: The 32 sites are the participating cities and metro areas with a baseline and at least one tract observed in every month (Atlanta, Other Oregon Counties and Greenville, South Carolina, are not). The counts are full counts of filings and carry no sampling interval.Source: Eviction Lab Eviction Tracking System, 2023-2025, balanced panel of tracts with a baseline; full counts of court filings, not weighted

Matthew Desmond argued in Evicted that eviction is a cause of poverty and not only a condition of it.[3] Counts of filings cannot test that claim, since they count petitions and not what follows them, and the box below reports a study that tests a version of it.

Causal evidenceInstrumental variables with random assignment of cases to judges

Whether an eviction order changes a tenant's later outcomes

Collinson and coauthors test a version of that claim with linked court and administrative records for Cook County, Illinois, and New York City.[4] Cases in these courts are assigned to judges at random, and judges differ in how often they order an eviction, so the judge a tenant draws shifts the chance of an eviction order independently of the tenant. Using that variation, the authors find that an eviction order increases homelessness and hospital visits and lowers earnings, durable goods consumption and access to credit in the years just after the order, with larger effects for female and Black tenants.

The estimates are for tenants whose outcomes depend on the judge they draw, in two courts, and they concern a court order. They do not measure the effect of the pandemic moratoria or of the monthly filing pattern in this section.

What these data cannot show

Every comparison in this chapter describes places or groups of households. A county, a tract, an area in the Fair Market Rent file or a site in the Eviction Tracking System is not a person, and a pattern across places need not hold for the people inside them (ecological inference). The renters of a tract differ from people who move in and out of it, and the data cannot separate who lives there from what the place provides.

The burden compares housing costs with income at one time. It does not say whether a household chose costly housing or had no cheaper option, and it does not measure the condition of the home, crowding or arrears. The shares come from a survey tabulation that HUD rounds cell by cell, tract shares are noisy, and the intervals leave out the survey's sampling error. HAMFI is HUD's benchmark and differs from the median household income used elsewhere in the book. The deprivation tenths use an index that counts housing costs among its inputs, so they cannot say whether deprivation or price levels sit behind a gradient.

The rent standard is one release for one fiscal year, set for an area and not for a county, and the incomes are the incomes of all households. The comparison holds across areas and not within a metropolitan area, and New England is not in it.

Filings are landlord petitions, not evictions or displaced households, and one household can be the subject of several filings. The index compares each tract with its own baseline, so it does not say where eviction is most common. Moratoria, emergency rental assistance, court closures and changes in local law all moved filings in these years, and the data do not separate them. The renter households behind the filing rates are from 2019 to 2023 and the filings from 2020 to 2025. The counts are full counts for the participating sites, so the series carry no sampling interval, and the sites are not a sample of the nation.

Data sources

HUD CHAS housing affordabilityHUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, American Community Survey 2018-2022 special tabulation: households by tenure, income relative to HUD's area median family income and housing cost burden, tracts and countiesYears: 2018-2022 · Weights: none (pooled household counts) · License: Public domain (U.S. federal)
HUD Fair Market RentsHUD Fair Market Rents, fiscal year 2025: the two-bedroom rent standard for each FMR areaYears: fiscal year 2025 (October 2024 to September 2025) · Weights: renter households with a computed burden (CHAS) · License: Public domain (U.S. federal)
American Community SurveyACS 2019-2023 county median household incomeYears: 2019-2023 (5-year) · Weights: household counts (CHAS) for the area mean · License: Public domain (U.S. Census Bureau)
Area Deprivation IndexArea Deprivation Index 2023, national rank, tracts ranked into tenthsYears: 2023 release (version 4.0.1; built on ACS 2019-2023) · Weights: households of the tenure with a computed burden · License: Free for non-commercial use; cite the Neighborhood Atlas and Kind and Buckingham
Eviction Tracking SystemEviction Tracking System, monthly eviction filings by tract and a pre-pandemic baseline, January 2020 to December 2025Years: 2020-2026 (monthly) · Weights: none (full counts of filings) · License: Eviction Lab data license; cite Hepburn, Louis and Desmond; not public domain

All data sources

Methods

This chapter compares the housing cost burden of renter and owner households in HUD's tabulation of the American Community Survey for 2018 to 2022, across income bands, tenths of tracts by deprivation, counties and Fair Market Rent areas, and then eviction filings by tract and by site from January 2020 to December 2025. The two parts cover different years and different tracts: the burden figures cover the 50 states and DC, with counties entering at 500 renter and 500 owner households with a computed burden, and the eviction index covers only tracts observed in all 72 months that have a baseline in every month. The burden intervals come from a bootstrap and do not include the sampling error of the survey, which HUD does not publish for shares, and HUD rounds every cell independently. The eviction series are full counts of filings and have no sampling interval.

Which places and households are covered

The 50 states and DC are covered, with Puerto Rico left out.

The county frame takes the county file for every state but Connecticut and sums the tract file over Connecticut's eight former counties; a county enters with at least 500 renter and 500 owner households with a computed burden.

Figures explained here: Figure 1 and Figure 2

How cost burden and income bands are defined

HUD CHAS counts households by tenure, by income relative to HUD's area median family income (HAMFI) and by the share of income spent on housing: a burden above 30 percent of income, and a severe burden above 50 percent.

Every share is a ratio of summed household counts (never an average of the published tract percentages) over households whose burden HUD computes; low-income households are those at or below 80 percent of HAMFI, and the low-income shares divide by the low-income households with a computed burden. The staged HUD percentage for low-income burdened households divides by all households and is not used.

The five income bands (30, 50, 80 and 100 percent of HAMFI) come from the raw HUD CHAS county Table 8, read once, and the income-mix standardization gives renters the owners' share of households in each band.

Figure explained here: Figure 1

How tracts and counties are grouped and weighted

Tenths of tracts hold near-equal numbers of tracts (tracts with equal ranks stay together) among those with an Area Deprivation Index national rank.

Tract shares are weighted by the households behind them; the within-county deviation subtracts each county's household-weighted mean from the tract share and from the index rank.

Figure explained here: Figure 3

How rent standards are matched to burden and income

An FMR area enters when all of its rows in the file are whole counties; the two-bedroom rent standard is the area's single value.

The area income is the household-weighted mean of the counties' ACS 2019-2023 median household incomes, and the renter burden is pooled over the area's counties.

Figure explained here: Figure 4

How the eviction filing index is built

The index is the sum of filings divided by the sum of the baseline over the tract-months of a group, for the tracts observed in all 72 months from January 2020 to December 2025 that have a baseline in every month.

Racial majority is the Eviction Lab's tract classification by the group that makes up a majority of residents in the ACS for 2015 to 2019. Filing rates per renter household divide filings by ACS 2019-2023 renter households.

Figures explained here: Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7

What the intervals include and leave out

HUD rounds every cell independently and publishes no margin of error for the shares.

Intervals come from a bootstrap over counties (tracts) or over states (FMR areas) with 2,000 replicates and seed 12345; they do not include the sampling error of the survey, which HUD does not publish for shares.

The eviction series are full counts and have no sampling interval.

References

McCarty, Maggie; Carpenter, David H.; Perl, Libby (2021). The CDC's Federal Eviction Moratorium. Congressional Research Service, Insight IN11673 (updated August 31, 2021). www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN11673.html
Hepburn, Peter; Louis, Renee; Desmond, Matthew (2020). Racial and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans. Sociological Science 7: 649-662. doi:10.15195/v7.a27
Desmond, Matthew (2016). Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Crown.
Collinson, Robert; Humphries, John Eric; Mader, Nicholas; Reed, Davin; Tannenbaum, Daniel; van Dijk, Winnie (2024). Eviction and Poverty in American Cities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 139(1): 57-120. doi:10.1093/qje/qjad042

How to cite

@misc{singh2026rentingaffordabilityandeviction,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Renting, affordability and eviction},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/renting-affordability-and-eviction},
  note = {In ZIP Code Destiny. Published 9 October 2026.}
}