Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Hous Policy Debate. 2020 Nov 25;32(2):369–385. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2020.1834429

Table 3.

Population-Weighted Single-Year Migration Status by Income-to-Needs Ratio from the 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) microdata (2012–16) (N = 1,323,283)

Moved in the last year Moved in the last year between PUMAs
Household income-to-needs ratio, % (SE)
 < .5 34.9 (0.1) 13.4 (0.1)
 .5–1.0 26.2 (0.1) 8.3 (0.1)
 1.0–1.5 24.8 (0.1) 8.0 (0.1)
 1.5+ 25.0 (0.1) 8.8 (0.1)

Note. SE = Standard Error; PUMAs = Public Use Microdata Areas. I limited my analytic sample to renters aged 18 or older who are income-eligible for the HCV program participation. To determine respondents’ income eligibility status, I compared their household income to the 50% of AMI in the HUD-defined area to which they belong. When the lowest level of geography (PUMA) for place of residence does not uniquely identify a HUD defined area, I used the max 50% of AMI among possible HUD defined areas within the PUMA. Author’s own calculation using IPUMS USA dataset (10.0 version) (Ruggles et al., 2020).