Still Living Without The Basics

rcap_cover_final

6/2/04

2:21 PM

Page 1

Still Living

Without the Basics in the 21st Century Analyzing the Availability of Wa t e r and Sanitation Services in the United States

Rural Community Assistance Partnership

Still Living Without the Basics

Table of Contents Foreword.............................................................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................3 Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century ......................................................................................3 Still Living Without the Basics: Analyzing the Availability of Water and Sanitation Services in the United States.......................................................................................................................................................7 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................7 Methodological Layout of the Study...............................................................................................................8 Part I of the Analysis......................................................................................................................................8 Part II of the Analysis....................................................................................................................................9 Information Gaps ............................................................................................................................................10 Report Findings and Discussions ..................................................................................................................11 How Many People in the United States Live Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services?..............11 Who Are the People Living Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services?...........................................12 Rural – Urban Divide...................................................................................................................................13 Analysis by Race and Ethnicity...................................................................................................................16 In Which States Are Basic Water Services Most Lacking? ........................................................................26 State-Level Analysis......................................................................................................................................26 County-Level Analysis .................................................................................................................................26 Rural-Urban Analysis ...................................................................................................................................28 Ethnic Distribution ......................................................................................................................................29 Why Are Water and Sanitation Services Important? ..................................................................................34 Factors Affecting People Living Without Basic Services...........................................................................36 Socioeconomic Conditions .........................................................................................................................36 Ruralness........................................................................................................................................................38 Cost and Quality of Water and Sanitation Services.................................................................................39 Demographics...............................................................................................................................................40 Factors Influencing Trends in Access to Water and Sanitation................................................................40 Socioeconomic Immigration.......................................................................................................................40 Housing Development.................................................................................................................................41 What Has Been and Is Being Done to Address These Issues?.................................................................42 Ensuring That Water Infrastructure Is Adequately Maintained ...............................................................42 Key Program and Policy Concerns Related to These Issues.....................................................................44 State-by-State Analysis at County Level .......................................................................................................55 Explanation of Terms .....................................................................................................................................57 Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................... 199

i

Still Living Without the Basics

Foreword Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century is the culmination of nearly a year of research and analysis that documents the availability of adequate water and sanitation service in U.S. homes. It is based in large part on data from the 2000 decennial census, supplemented by other publicly available information. This publication is a sequel, updating an analysis published in 1995 by the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP, Inc.) that focused on data from the 1990 decennial census. In comparing these documents, two points stand out clearly. The efforts of the Rural Community Assistance Partnership – and other agencies and organizations working tirelessly in thousands of small rural communities – have paid off significantly. And still, much remains to be done. The 1990 census showed that 405,855 rural households lacked complete indoor plumbing. Rural households represented more than half of all U.S. homes that lacked adequate water and sanitation services. By the 2000 census, 226,967 rural households were without complete indoor plumbing, representing about one-third of the national total. This is real progress. Despite the success to date, more than 600,000 residents of rural communities still do not have the basic water and sanitation services the rest of us take for granted. It is no surprise that they are likely to be economically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities, and geographically isolated. There is much more to the story, of course. This report also looks at the quality of water and sanitation services and the health consequences of inadequate service. Just as there is much to do, there also is much to learn about the causes and effects of inadequate basic infrastructure. The research, analysis, and writing for this report was done by Stephen Gasteyer, Ph.D., RCAP’s Director of Community Development, and Rahul T. Vaswani, M.A., Research Associate at RCAP. Their work was made possible by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water as well as U.S. EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utility Service’s Water and Environmental Programs. As a nation, we have succeeded in bringing proper water and sanitation service to almost every home. What’s left is likely to be the most difficult part of making water and sanitation services truly universal. Randolph A. Adams, Ph.D. Executive Director Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.

1

Still Living Without the Basics

Executive Summary Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century The United States has achieved remarkable success in improving access to modern water and sanitation services for its citizens in the past five decades. Today only 0.64 percent of U.S. households lack complete plumbing facilities. This is a monumental leap from 1950, when more than one-fourth of the nation, and more than half of all rural residents, lacked those facilities. Yet we have more to accomplish – and in more complex ways. The U.S. 2000 Census reveals that more than 1.7 million people in the United States, 670,986 households, still lack the basic plumbing facilities that most of us have come to take for granted. To some observers, these Americans may appear to be lost or insignificant within the larger population, but the hardships they endure in their daily lives are very real. It may seem reasonable to assume that people who live in the 21st century with services more characteristic of a bygone era choose to live in places or situations where modern services are not available, or to live in such conditions only temporarily. A closer look at the numbers and trends reveals the opposite. A combination of circumstances – some of them persistent – have excluded these people from the reach of development. Some of the people affected are the poorest of the poor, living in sparsely populated rural areas or in densely populated urban areas. They live in almost every state from coast to coast – in the vast reaches of Alaska; the urban centers of southern California, New York, and Illinois; the sprawling colonias bordering Mexico; the Indian reservations and counties of the Four Corners region in the West; the underserved rural communities of West Virginia and the New England states. More than a third of them have household incomes below the federal poverty level. In fact, if you were born in 2000 into a family living below the poverty level in the United States, you were four times as likely as a fellow American living above the poverty level to be in a home without adequate indoor plumbing. These people are spread across all racial and ethnic categories, but they are more prominent in the minority groups. Among American Indians and Alaska Natives, nearly one in 20 households across the nation lacks complete working indoor plumbing. In the state of Alaska alone, one in every 16 households lacks these facilities, and in some boroughs, such as the Bethel Census area, more than half of all Native homes do not have adequate plumbing. Similarly, one in every three American Indian homes in Apache and Navajo counties in Arizona goes without these services. The majority of these homes are rural. Among Hispanics, the people most affected live in the traditional centers of large Hispanic populations – Los Angeles in California; Miami-Dade in Florida; Harris and Hidalgo counties in Texas; Bronx, Kings, and New York counties in New York – and in the rural areas of New England, the South, and the West, where groups of Hispanics, including immigrants in the past decade, work as agricultural and farm workers. The largest proportion of African-Americans living without adequate water services is in Montana, where almost 4 percent of African-American households lack complete plumbing facilities. More than 1 percent of African-Americans lacked these facilities in the southern states of Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia, as well as northeast states such as Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

3

Still Living Without the Basics

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders also often lacked complete facilities in relatively high proportion to their population. For instance, more than 11 percent in Vermont and 10 percent in North Dakota reported lacking services. A look at the state-level information shows that Alaska has the highest percentage of households without plumbing – 6.32 percent of all its households – and Nebraska has the lowest, with only 0.36 percent of its households. More than half (53 percent) of all households lacking proper plumbing facilities in the United States are concentrated in just one-fifth of the states – California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina. This is not surprising because these states also have more than half (52 percent) of the nation’s population and more than half (55 percent) of the people who live below the poverty level. What is surprising, though, is that only half of these states have done better than in 1990 in reducing the numbers of people without adequate plumbing. In the other half, the numbers of households without services have increased. While the rural-urban divide has lessened over the last five decades – in 1950 it was almost five to one, with 50 percent of rural homes and 11 percent of urban homes lacking plumbing – it still persists at two to one. And with a larger share of rural homes in poverty, rural households are more greatly affected. Today, a poor rural home is two and a half times more likely than a poor urban home to lack proper indoor plumbing. As the home gets more rural – that is, as the population level decreases within the area – the chances of not having such services increase further. In five of the states – New Mexico, Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi – half or almost half of the homes that lack adequate indoor plumbing also are below the poverty level. Disaggregating the picture to look at county-level information gives a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the social and economic variables that affect basic water and sanitation services. The counties that are persistently poor, non-metro, and rural, with a larger share of their populations composed of minority groups, are more likely to have inadequate plumbing services than are urban counties with a more diverse racial and ethnic mix of groups. More important, these inadequate systems pose significant health risks for vulnerable populations. Smaller community water systems that have limited access to the resources they need to enhance these basic services are likely also to be in violation of health and safety standards set by national environmental authorities. Studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found more outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States in the 1999–2000 period than in the previous seven years. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports also show that 8.2 percent of the 48,271 community water systems in the United States that serve populations of less than 10,000 were in violation of health and safety standards for drinking water quality in 2003. Couple these statistics with an aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced or improved, and the recent reductions in spending for programs to enhance water and sanitation services, and we see an imposing and complex situation that will require careful attention and multifaceted solutions in the coming years. The social and economic impacts of this situation are likely to be great, as are the ecological effects of diminishing water supplies in vulnerable areas. These are only some aspects of basic water and sanitation services in the United States that public policy should be concerned about. Other important aspects involve the efficacy and efficiency of our collection and presentation of information about these services. How we define questions about water and sanitation services in national surveys, and how we tabulate the responses for subsequent analysis and understanding of national realities, are crucial if the resulting reports are to be substantive and meaningful. How we define the categories of “rural,” “urban,” and “poverty”

4

Still Living Without the Basics

becomes even more critical when the largest sources of funds – both federal and private – for improving the socioeconomic conditions of people who live in poverty in both urban and rural areas rely on these definitions as they disperse funds and institute programs. There is an intrinsic link between the quality of basic services such as water and sanitation and the economic opportunities that follow their improvement, especially in communities that are in close proximity to developing urban centers. While we have seen a slight shift in the population from rural to urban in the past decade, the conditions of many rural Americans have not improved, and the quality of their basic services is an important reason. While the United States has made great improvements in the quality of life for many urban and rural Americans, there is more to be achieved – even in something as simple and essential as bringing safe, clean water and basic water and sanitation services to the entirety of the U.S. populace. The gap has been reduced to less than 1 percent of the entire population in the past century. Now our efforts must focus on closing the gap. This task requires developing a more complex and detailed understanding of the social, economic, and ecological reasons why communities lack these services, and constructing solutions that are not only acceptable and feasible, but also sustainable. Still Living Without the Basics is intended to inform the public’s understanding of access to water and sanitation services in the United States and to contribute to the debate on how to structure policy decisions for improving these services, especially for those groups that have been excluded or overlooked in the development process. We hope to build on this research in the near future, further investigating the links between people’s access to services and the various social, economic, and ecological outcomes that affect those people. Stephen Gasteyer, Ph.D., Director of Community Development Rahul T. Vaswani, M.A., Research Associate

5

Still Living Without the Basics

Still Living Without the Basics: Analyzing the Availability of Water and Sanitation Services in the United States Introduction For the vast majority of United States citizens in the 21st century, household water has become so readily available that we barely consider it. Turn on the tap, jump in the shower, flush the toilet – we take for granted our access to potable water and modern sanitation and assume that everyone across the country has access to these services. Indeed, almost everyone does – more than 99 percent of U.S. residents, according to the 2000 Census. Most international health and socioeconomic development institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank (WB), simply round up that percentage and report that 100 percent of U.S. citizens have access to developed water and sanitation services.1 They suggest that the few Americans who lack these amenities are extreme exceptions – exceedingly rare and subject to extraordinary circumstances, probably temporary.2 The number of households involved may indeed seem statistically small, at 0.64 percent of all U.S. households. But that 0.64 percent translates into 670,986 households, representing more than 1.7 million people3 who lack complete plumbing facilities (Table 1).4 This is the number of people who are falling through the cracks. Makers of public policy – urban and rural, social and economic – need to focus on these 1.7 million and their needs. These numbers are indicative of larger and more severe realities that policy makers often overlook or fail to comprehend. Beyond those people who live without access to proper plumbing services, increasing numbers of people live in areas where the groundwater they use for household purposes is contaminated or where the supply of water is dwindling because of water losses and overuse. Even communities that have had piped water for some time are now confronting the reality of having to replace or upgrade aging infrastructure and water treatment facilities that no longer comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) health and safety regulations.5 Drawing on data from the U.S. Census surveys of 1990 and 2000 and other related sources, this report describes some of the characteristics of the people who still live without access to basic water and sanitation services in the United States. It tries to answer some elementary questions: What is 1 See, for example, the water and sanitation statistics available for the United States on the WHO and UNICEF websites at http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global11-2.htm or http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/en/Glassessment11.pdf – page 3, and at http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/water/Euroam/usa_water1.pdf. 2 “Americans” in this report refers only to U.S. citizens, U.S. residents, or U.S. nationals, any of whom reside in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and, where specified, in Puerto Rico and the Island Areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands). 3 These statistics include information from only the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. They are tabulated from the responses to Item 39 of the Long Form of U.S. Census 2000. 4 It is important to note that the U.S. Census definition of “lacking complete plumbing facilities” is the lack of any of the following services within the housing unit: (a) hot and cold piped water, (b) bathtub or shower, (c) flush toilet. This definition has been more or less consistent since 1970. We take this definition to be equivalent, for purposes of this report, to the more general understanding of what constitutes basic water and sanitation facilities. See also the section on information gaps in this report for a better understanding of the limitations of information on plumbing and sanitation facilities. 5 For more information, see USEPA, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, Office of Water (4606M) EPA-816-R-02-020, 2002, or www.epa.gov/safewater. Also see West Central Initiative, Infrastructure for West Central Minnesota Communities, West Central Initiative, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, 2002, or http://www.wcif.org/publications/pdf/infra_2003/infrastructurestudy2003.pdf; accessed May 2, 2004.

7

Still Living Without the Basics

the number of households and people lacking these services? What regions, states, and counties are home to these people? Do these people tend to live more in rural or urban areas? What are their ethnicities? What is their socioeconomic status? The report also tries to address some key policy questions that arise from this analysis: How have the numbers of people living without services changed over time – particularly in the past decade? What has contributed to this change? What is the relationship of water and sanitation services to other basic services? What do policy makers need to understand more clearly about this information to make further improvements in the availability of water and sanitation services? What efforts need to be taken in this direction?

Methodological Layout of the Study This report provides an analysis of the access to complete plumbing facilities in the United States – the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands).6 Where possible, the analysis looks beyond the U.S. Census levels to cover regional, state, and county place levels as well. The basic research for our analysis was done in two parts. Part I of the Analysis In the first part, we relied entirely on the information provided by the U.S. Census for 1990 and 2000, and undertook our research in four successively complex stages. The first stage involved collecting data and arranging it for subsequent analysis. This stage included determining how the demographic and socioeconomic data relate to each other. We did this primarily at the state and national levels and disaggregated it across six of the eight major race and ethnicity categories used in the Census 2000 survey. The categories included in this study are the six races of “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian and Alaska Native” (AIAN), “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” (NHOPI), “Asian,” “Some Other Race,” and the ethnic category of “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” In the second stage, we analyzed the data down to the county level7 for the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and to the Census-designated place (CDP) level for the Island Areas. In the case of the four Island Areas, we made this change in geographic level, from county to CDP, to obtain a more meaningful representation of information at a disaggregated level. At both of these substate geographic levels, we analyzed the data for the number of households and the number of people lacking complete plumbing facilities. Where possible, we also tracked the breakdown of these numbers for the six race and ethnicity categories listed above. This was not always possible, because the size of some counties is so small that the Census Bureau does not release information about housing and population characteristics in order to maintain the confidentiality of the respondents. In the third stage, we determined the possible lack of adequate water and sanitation facilities for households and people disaggregated by race and by ethnicity, in urban and rural areas, at both the

The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas are each treated as the statistical equivalent of a state for U.S. Census purposes. However, figures quoted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the United States as a whole include numbers for the District of Columbia but not for the other equivalent states, and this report treats those figures the same way unless otherwise stated in the text. 7 While tabulation of data below the county level was not practical for this endeavor, we fully recognize the limitations of county data, specifically for recognizing rural/urban differential. Urban counties in the West often contain rural places. 6

8

Still Living Without the Basics

state and the county or CDP levels. This gave a clearer picture of how the numbers were geographically placed. In the fourth stage, we determined the correlation between the lack of adequate water and sanitation facilities and the level of poverty, at both the state and county or CDP levels. We also did these correlations with similar information available for the race and ethnic categories above, and for households in urban and rural areas. Using ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) applications, we mapped our findings for the states, counties, and CDP areas, showing the percentages and absolute numbers of households and people lacking adequate water and sanitation services. Part II of the Analysis In the second part of our analysis, we took information from additional data sources to help us address some of the important questions that either were based on the assumptions that led to our analysis or arose in the process of the research itself. For this we used the following sources: § The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) datasets of the USEPA to find the relationship between the number of people without access to services and the size, ownership, and health safety violations of small community water systems. § Data from the Advanced Query Data Finder of the U.S. Census Bureau to find the relationship between the lack of complete plumbing facilities and the cost of water and sanitation services in rural and urban locations across the United States. § The information compiled in the first part of our research at the state and county levels, the correlations determined above, and other available socioeconomic and demographic indicators to develop hypotheses about certain areas that have a relatively higher number or percentage of households reporting lack of water and sanitation services. This was necessary to understand the underlying causes for the lack of adequate water and sanitation services in different socioeconomic and demographic conditions. Using the methodology described above, we were able to determine how many households or people of any race or ethnic group do not have access to complete plumbing facilities, at the state and county levels, in both urban and rural areas. We were also able to determine some important correlations between the lack of complete plumbing facilities and other variables, such as these: 1. The poverty level in each of these states and counties, and likewise in each of the urban and rural areas in each state and county. 2. The monthly cost of water and sewer facilities per household. 3. The health safety violations of codes and regulations that occur in the small community water systems serving these households in each county. Our analysis has helped us better understand, and at the same time has affirmed some of our preanalytical assumptions on, the relationships between economic conditions, geographic location, conditions of infrastructure, and kinds of communities. More important, these understandings have helped us identify some of the resources, services, and assistance underserved communities need in the coming years to meet the gap in water and sanitation infrastructure.

9

Still Living Without the Basics

Information Gaps In the course of our research, we encountered some important information gaps that readers of this report should be aware of as they try to understand the analysis. § Not all people answering the U.S. Census Long Form interpreted the question about plumbing services in the same way.8 For instance, the 2000 Census revealed that more than 1,100 households, or more than 3,200 people, in Fairfax County, Virginia (a relatively affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), lacked complete plumbing services. This finding raises the possibility that some responses were not what the Census question intended to elicit. Some respondents, for instance, may have noted that they lacked complete plumbing services when those services were in fact available to them but had been turned off for lack of payment – presumably a temporary condition, not a permanent one. While we view this issue as critically related to our concerns, it is beyond the scope of this report. It is worth noting here, though, that other organizations have increasingly focused on how the inability to pay affects people’s access to water services, whether temporarily (as when water is cut off for nonpayment) or permanently.9 § It is possible that many people who probably lack access to basic services were not included in the Census. Among these people may be the homeless in the United States, as well as immigrants or migrant laborers who might have worried about responding to the Census data collectors out of fear that the information would be turned over to law enforcement or immigration authorities. While the Census Bureau maintains confidentiality of the data it collects, the fact that the bureau is part of the U.S. government can make it suspect in the eyes of many people in such categories. § Several key questions about plumbing and sanitation facilities were eliminated from the U.S. Census questionnaires between 1990 and 2000. These included data about the source of water, the type of water and wastewater facilities, and water system ownership. In the U.S. 2000 Census, they exist only in the questionnaires distributed in the Island Areas. If they had been included in all of the questionnaires, these questions would have allowed for a more detailed analysis of not only the numbers of people lacking plumbing and sanitation services but also the population living with inadequate water services.10 § Because of confidentiality considerations in small counties and inconsistencies between the data available from the U.S. Census Bureau and data from the State Drinking Water Information System, wherever possible we concentrated our correlations on the counties whose information appeared in both databases. The same is true for correlations between U.S. Census information and the data taken from the query results of Advanced Factfinder. For example, the correlation between the lack of plumbing facilities and the monthly cost of water and sewer facilities was possible for only 2,336 of the total 3,219 U.S. counties.11 § The definition of "urban" and "rural" changed between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census surveys. Thus, the information for these categories is not directly comparable between the two surveys.12 Nonetheless, we have shown the comparative data from the two years in our ranking tables to give readers a general idea of the magnitude of changes in "urban" and "rural" numbers between the two censuses. See the glossary at the end of this report for a description of the Long Form. See the work of Public Citizen and the Welfare Rights Association on water cutoffs in Detroit, Michigan (www.citizen.org/facts/detroit), and the report of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council on water system affordability (www.epa.gov/safewater/ndwac/affordability). 10 The distinction here is among drinking water, water for other household purposes, and sanitation/sewer facilities. 11 The total number of counties (municipios, in the case of Puerto Rico) for the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is 3,219. 12 For a more detailed description of “urban” and “rural,” see the glossary at the end of this report. 8 9

10

Still Living Without the Basics

Report Findings and Discussions In this report we cover the following related issues: § Households and populations without access to basic water and sanitation services, mapped by each state and down to the county level where possible. § The breakdown of the population living without these services by race/ethnicity – specifically for the six race/ethnicity categories included in this report – at the state and county levels. § An analysis of rural-urban differences and similarities related to lack of these services. § Public health implications of not having access to basic water and sanitation services. § Factors that influence access to water and sanitation in the United States. § Steps that are being taken to address these issues. § Key issues for rural water infrastructure. § Key program and policy concerns related to these issues. We provide county-level information tables and GIS maps representing the numbers of households in each county that lack access to complete plumbing services. We have used information from the U.S. Census to document these numbers. We have correlated this information with data from SDWIS and discussed some of our findings, where applicable. While we clearly have not exhausted the data available on water and sanitation, we hope this report will contribute to an understanding of the work still to be done in the United States on this issue.

How Many People in the United States Live Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services? The United States has made great progress over the past 50 years in providing its residents with access to improved water and sewer facilities. In 1950, 27 percent of all households in the country lacked access to complete plumbing facilities. The rural-urban divide then was more substantial – close to a five-to-one ratio. More than 50 percent of rural households and 11 percent of urban households lacked these services in 1950. Significant rural infrastructure investments by the federal and local governments through the 1950s and 1960s led to a dramatic decrease in the households without proper plumbing facilities. By 1970, only 5.9 percent of all U.S. households lacked piped water, although the ratio of rural to urban still remained close to five to one (14.5 percent of rural and 3.1 percent of urban households lacked proper plumbing facilities in 1970). Table 1: Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, 1950–200013 % of occupied housing units lacking plumbing (U.S.)

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Rural 14 Rural – farm Urban Total

56 55 11 27

31.5 NA 8.2 14.7

14.5 NA 3.1 5.9

4.5 3.9 2.2 2.7

1.9 NA 0.5 0.78

1.0 1.2 0.5 0.64

13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing 1950, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1952; Census of Housing 1960 (1962); Census of Housing 1970 (1972); Census of Housing 1980 (1982); Census of Housing 1990 (1992); Census of Housing 2000 (2002). Also see Dennis Warner and Jaris S. Dajani, Water and Sewer Development in Rural America: A Study of Community Impacts, Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1975. 14 The “Rural”category includes all non-farm and farm households. The “Rural – farm” category includes all households located in a rural farm area and concerned with growing crops or raising livestock.

11

Still Living Without the Basics

By 1990, the United States had installed basic plumbing infrastructure for more than 99 percent of its citizens. Most of the people who lacked plumbing services were elderly, poor, and living in rural areas.15 Rural households were still four times as likely as urban households to lack proper plumbing. By the 2000 Census, only 0.64 percent of occupied households lacked complete plumbing facilities (Table 2). Indeed, the percentage was low enough in 2000 that UNICEF stated in its global reports on access to water and sanitation services that the United States had 100 percent water and sanitation coverage. While the 0.64 percent may appear to be statistically insignificant, it represents more than 1.7 million people across the country, most of whom are the hidden poor – people who live in rural, and often underserved or marginalized, areas that lack the services that most Americans take for granted. The rural-urban divide is still at two to one – a rural household is twice as likely as an urban one to have inadequate plumbing facilities in the United States (Table 2).16 U.S. Census 2000 figures suggest that more than 1.1 million urban citizens (equal to 0.5 percent of the total urban population) and more than 600,000 rural citizens (equal to 1.04 percent of the total rural population) still lack proper plumbing facilities. Table 2. Total and Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, 1990–2000 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Census Total – Percentage – Total – Percentage – Year Total Percentage Rural Rural Urban Urban 2000 1990

670,986 721,693

0.64 0.78

226,967 405,855

1.03 1.85

444,019 315,838

0.53 0.45

Who Are the People Living Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services? The people who lack these basic services live in some of the most productive farmland in the United States, along the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, on Indian reservations, and in the states of the South and the Southeast. They are people working and living in rural and urban areas with dilapidated or nonexistent infrastructure. The Census 2000 data show that 0.64 percent of all occupied households in the country lack adequate plumbing (see Maps 1 and 2). This translates to 670,986 households in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or more than 1.7 million people. When the numbers for Puerto Rico are included, the total households lacking plumbing increase to 736,626, and the number of people lacking these services increases to more than 1.95 million.17 In addition, 11,033 households and an estimated population of 47,800 in the Island Areas lack complete plumbing facilities; this calculation brings the total figure close to 2 million U.S. residents.18

15 See Still Living Without the Basics: A Report on the Lack of Complete Plumbing That Still Exists in Rural America, Rural Community Assistance Program, Washington, D.C., 1995. 16 It is important to note that the U.S. Census 2000 survey does not have a precise definition of what constitutes “rural” areas. Rather, it goes about defining urban areas, accounting for core areas, urbanized areas, and urban clusters differentiated by population density, proximity to metropolitan centers, and so on. What is left is given the status of “rural.” The 1990 Census found 62 million people living in rural parts of the country. The number dropped by about 5 percent in the 2000 Census, although the total U.S. population increased by about 13 percent. It is likely that at least some of this decrease results from the change in the definition of what constitutes “rural” between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, rather than from socioeconomic changes in that decade. 17 This figure of more than 1.95 million is obtained from the Advanced Query Data Finder of the Census Bureau and corroborates to the population estimates obtained from the Summary File 3 of the U.S. Census 2000 survey. 18 The U.S. Census information does not include the numbers for Puerto Rico or the Island Areas in its tabulations of the total households and people lacking complete plumbing facilities.

12

Still Living Without the Basics

Rural – Urban Divide When we break down the numbers and percentages of households lacking proper water and sanitation services among rural areas, rural places with populations of less than 1,000 and rural farm populations have the highest percentage of homes lacking services, well above the national average of 0.64 percent. In the case of urban areas, the highest percentage of households lacking these services is in the most densely populated urbanized areas (those with populations of 5 million or more) and in the fringe areas of urban clusters that are adjacent to rural areas and have populations ranging from 2,500 to 4,999. The relative difference in lack of services between urban and rural areas ranges from about 1.5 to 3 times, depending on the population level of the area (Table 3). Table 3. Households and Population in Rural and Urban Areas Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, 2000 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Plumbing Facilities Geography Percentage of Total Estimated Population Total Households Lacking Plumbing19 United States as a whole Rural Rural – total in a place Rural – in a place of 2,500 or more people Rural – in a place of 1,000 to 2,500 people Rural – in a place of fewer than 1,000 people Rural – not in a place Rural – farm

670,986 226,967 41,704

0.64 1.03 0.84

1,737,814 599,193 105,511

9,156

0.61

23,897

13,288

0.68

33,087

19,260

1.27

48,150

185,263 13,172

1.09 1.19

496,505 35,564

Urban Urban – in an urbanized area Urban – in an urbanized area of 5,000,000 or more Urban – in an urbanized area of 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 Urban – in an urbanized area of 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 Urban – in an urbanized area of 500,000 to 999,999 Urban – in an urbanized area of 250,000 to 499,999 Urban – in an urbanized area of 100,000 to 249,999 Urban – in an urbanized area of 50,000 to 99,999 Urban – in an urban cluster Urban – in an urban cluster of 25,000 to 49,999 Urban – in an urban cluster of 5,000 to 9,999 Urban – in an urban cluster of 2,500 to 4,999

444,019 389,261

0.53 0.54

1,145,569 1,012,079

121,651

0.80

335,757

85,380

0.58

223,696

56,563

0.43

143,670

43,161

0.48

109,629

29,399

0.42

74,379

32,175

0.41

81,081

20,932

0.41

52,121

54,758

0.48

136,347

14,045

0.43

34,832

12,162

0.51

30,405

9,540

0.54

23,659

19 The estimated population is calculated by multiplying the number of households lacking plumbing facilities by the average household size for that category (as given in Summary File 3 of the U.S. Census 2000 survey).

13

Still Living Without the Basics

14

Still Living Without the Basics

15

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 3 shows that rural areas generally have a higher percentage of the population lacking plumbing. Within rural households, the proportion of those lacking plumbing is highest in communities of fewer than 1,000 residents and among farm households. For urbanized areas or urban clusters, the trend is different. Within urban areas, the most densely populated areas (those of 5 million or more) have the highest percentage lacking services – 0.80 percent. The percentage drops steadily as the population size of the urban area decreases, reaching 0.41 percent of households lacking proper plumbing in urban areas of only 50,000 to 99,999 people. In the smaller, urban cluster category, the percentage rises as the population decreases – from 0.43 percent in larger clusters of 25,000 to 49,999 people, to 0.54 percent in the smallest urban clusters of 2,500 to 4,999 people. Rural areas have traditionally been the most difficult to reach with water services, because they lack the economies of scale to support such services without subsidization or they lack the technical assistance and financing. A total of 226,967 rural households lack adequate plumbing, which includes 13,172 rural farm households.20 Despite the rise in American economic and living standards with the boom in agricultural capacity, it is clear that rural-farm households remain some of the most deprived in the nation in terms of basic services. The relatively high percentage of those lacking services in the highly urbanized areas is presumably the result of two factors: low-income populations living in substandard housing and people reporting water cutoffs as lacking plumbing facilities. In either case, more research may be needed to identify the reasons for this statistic. Analysis by Race and Ethnicity The figures for the percentage of households and the total population lacking complete plumbing facilities vary greatly by race and ethnicity. Among race categories, American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) have the greatest percentage of households nationwide lacking complete plumbing facilities, at 4.41 percent or 33,781 of their households (Tables 4 and 5, Maps 3 and 4), and Whites have the lowest, at 0.47 of their households. Alaska has the highest percentage of households without services – 6.32 percent – with the proportion in rural areas more than 18 percent. More than half of all rural AIAN communities in the Bethel, Nome, Wade Hampton, and YukonKoyukuk census areas, for example, do not have services. More than a third (38.79 percent) of all rural AIAN communities across Alaska live in similar conditions. This is in part because of the isolation of much of Alaska from modern infrastructure and the resulting cost of installing water services, which most Alaska Native communities are unwilling or unable to bear. It is also a result of the geology of Alaska, because the severe cold makes drilling and maintaining water lines difficult. While many Alaska Natives have said that they would prefer living without services to dealing with the problems of piped water, there are increasing efforts to improve sanitation services. This situation is described this way: Many rural Alaskans live without running water and flush toilets. The basic sanitation needs in nearly one-half of Alaska’s 192 Native villages have yet to be met. Another 76 rural communities are not considered to be Native villages; however, the Federal Field Work Group on Alaska Rural Water and Wastewater Sanitation Issues reported in 1995 "sanitation facilities in a number of these communities are known to be similar to those of Alaska Native villages." The work group, which was commissioned by Congress, reviewed the social-economic factors contributing to sanitation inadequacy and noted that one-fourth of Alaska’s Native residents "live without running water and use plastic buckets for toilets." In Of the 670,986 households lacking complete plumbing facilities in the United States, 444,019 are urban households and 226,967 are rural households. See Tables 2 and 3 in the text.

20

16

Still Living Without the Basics

many villages, residents must haul water to their homes. Due to the high need for housing, many homes are constructed without adequate sanitation facilities being available to connect homes or provide safe running water or proper sewage disposal. Communities are often faced with having to make difficult decisions between adequate housing and adequate sanitation..21 Table 4. Total and Percentage of Rural and Urban Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, by Race or Ethnic Category, 2000 Race/ Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Ethnic Total % Rural – % Rural Total % Total % Category Rural Rural Farm – Farm Urban Urban White Black AIAN Asian NHOPI SOR Hispanic

389,415 131,382 33,781 27,780 1,383 62,687 134,723

0.47 1.10 4.41 0.89 1.40 1.63 1.47

158,653 30,724 27,256 644 338 5,090 12,256

0.79 2.66 9.62 0.82 3.88 2.18 2.16

11,449 1,109 253 53 4 213 451

1.09 3.64 4.36 1.81 1.61 2.87 2.55

230,762 100,658 6,525 27,136 1,045 57,597 122,467

0.36 0.93 1.35 0.89 1.16 1.60 1.42

The American Indians living without complete plumbing services are most numerous in the reservations and pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona. An investigation of the county-level information indicates that this ethnic group is most affected in the Four Corners area of New Mexico and Arizona – in other words, on the large Hopi, Navajo, and Apache Reservations. In Arizona, for instance, 35 percent of American Indians in Apache County and 27 percent in Navajo County lack adequate plumbing. Significant numbers of American Indians do not have basic services in areas such as the Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota, which covers three counties – Bennett, Jackson, and Shannon – where 2.49, 2.65, and 12.96 percent of households, respectively, report not having complete plumbing facilities. The Some Other Race (SOR) category is a catch-all category chosen by those who feel that their race is not represented in the other six race categories. Based on an evaluation done by the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 95 percent of those who filled in this category are of Mexican, Panamanian, Caribbean, Central American, and/or South American origin.22

Rural Alaska Sanitation Coalition, Mission and Goals, Alaska Native Health Board, http://www.anhb.org/sub/rasc/, accessed May 2, 2004. 22 Census Bureau, “Results of 2003 National Census Test of Race and Hispanic Questions of 2003,” Suitland, Maryland, U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, 2004. 21

17

Still Living Without the Basics

18

Still Living Without the Basics

19

Still Living Without the Basics

Hispanics (including Puerto Ricans) are the next largest group, at 1.47 percent (or 134,723 households) (Maps 5 and 6). More than 64,000 of these households are located in Puerto Rico. Another 36,505 are in California, and 28,157 are in Texas. The largest numbers of people living without services are in the urban, coastal, southern California counties of Los Angeles and San Diego. The counties with the highest proportions of people living without services, though, are in California’s Central Valley, a lucrative agricultural area with many farm workers from Central and South America. These workers often struggle for a meager living, and large numbers of them remain persistently poor and without access to basic services. The Texas population is from the colonias along the Mexican border, where the lack of water and sanitation stems from a combination of land tenure problems, poverty, and unresolved immigration status. The USEPA has described the situation as follows: There are more than 1,300 “colonias” in Texas and New Mexico along the border with an estimated population of more than 300,000. A few colonias may exist in Arizona and some possibly in California. However, most colonias are concentrated in the Las Cruces, New Mexico, El Paso, Texas, and the lower Rio Grande Valley area, and west surrounding Brownsville, Texas. Colonias developed in the border area (especially in Texas) as land developers sold small plots of land in unincorporated subdivisions to low-income families. These land purchases are generally financed with a low down payment and low monthly payments. A deed of ownership is rarely transferred. At the time this activity took place, State law only required road access and drainage. Providing solutions to public health problems in the colonias is a unique situation in that they are not political subdivisions. Financial programs are normally designed to deal with an identified political entity. The typical colonia does not have any basic community infrastructure such as safe drinking water, sewage disposal, or garbage collection and disposal.23 In absolute numbers of people lacking complete plumbing facilities in the country as a whole, the White race category has the highest numbers, with more than 950,000 people, followed by Hispanics at more than 475,000 people and Black or African Americans at more than 350,000 people. On analyzing these numbers more closely at the county level, we find that for the race/ethnic categories of White, Black or African Americans, Asian, and Hispanic, more than 96 percent of all households lacking plumbing in the top 10 counties for each race category in the nation are urban households. This is starkly different for the race category of AIAN. More than 96 percent of all AIANs lacking plumbing facilities in the top 10 counties are rural. For the NHOPI category, two-thirds of the homes in the top 10 counties are urban, and the rest are rural.24

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Mexico Border: Colonias Fact Sheet, USEPA, Washington, D.C., 2003, http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/mexican/clnfcts.pdf, accessed May 2, 2004. 24 It is important to note that the numbers for households lacking complete plumbing facilities in the top 10 counties in each race/ethnicity category represent a substantial percentage of the total households lacking services for each of these race/ethnicity categories. For example, the top 10 counties for AIAN, NHOPI and Asian race categories have 60 percent, 50 percent, and 45 percent, respectively, of the total households lacking plumbing in these categories all over the nation. 23

20

Still Living Without the Basics

21

Still Living Without the Basics

22

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 5. Top Five States With Highest Percentage of Households Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, for Six Race and Ethnic Categories, 200025 Race/ Ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 Category State % State % State % State % State % White Black AIAN Asian NHOPI SOR Hispanic

AK MT AK ND VT MA MA

4.28 3.99 22.98 2.19 11.11 3.61 3.39

HI MS AZ SD ND AK AK

1.10 1.73 17.02 2.01 10.81 3.46 2.45

WV RI NM MN CT ME NY

1.00 1.64 14.18 1.96 9.12 3.09 2.18

KY VA UT RI ME DC CT

0.94 1.53 9.89 1.75 6.82 3.04 2.17

ME MA DC NH LA CT RI

0.84 1.50 6.08 1.64 4.93 2.61 1.92

The percentages for each of the race/ethnic groups lacking services vary widely geographically. A critical commonality for all minority race/ethnicity groups except AIAN is that the states where they have the highest percentage without water services is where they have a smaller population (Table 5). The highest percentage of Hispanic households with inadequate plumbing is located in the urbanized northeastern states and Alaska, where the population of Hispanics is relatively low. The majority of AIAN households lacking plumbing are located in Alaska, as discussed above, and in the predominantly Indian and rural, underserved counties of the west in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The highest percentage of Blacks without services is in Montana, which has a very low Black population. More than 1.5 percent of Blacks in Rhode Island, which also has a small Black population, reported lacking water services. The percentages of Blacks without services were also high in the persistently poor, predominantly African American counties of Mississippi and Virginia. The case of Bayview, Virginia, in Northampton County, is illustrative. On a sun-kissed afternoon, Victoria Cummings fetches her 5-year-old daughter, Kadijah, from the Head Start bus stop up on the asphalt road….Once home, Kadijah exerts her tiny biceps by pumping a dishpan full of off-color rust-flavored water from the outdoor hand pump that her mother will use for her "bath." Cummings plans a trip to the store to buy bottled water for drinking and cooking with her food stamps. Her 12-year-old, Latoya, gets home about 3:30 p.m., and Cummings leaves shortly after that for her night-shift job cutting fat off plucked chickens.…The small settlement of Bayview sits on a peninsula across the Chesapeake Bay from the rest of Virginia. One in a string of Eastern Shore communities settled by freed slaves, it slowly has sunk into abject poverty in a state where much of the economy hums with the promise of the next century. Bayview’s 114 residents are among the most impoverished in what, by some measures, is Virginia’s poorest county….Cummings’s dream is simple: "Water – running water – inside the house," she says.26 It is notable that through community initiative and collaboration with multiple government and nongovernment organizations, Bayview is installing new housing and water facilities. Over time, collective action has improved the situation.27 When we look at the states where minority groups are concentrated in large numbers, though, we find that they constitute a predominantly large share of the people in the state who lack complete plumbing facilities. For example, in Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and 25 Puerto Rico has some of the highest rates of households lacking complete plumbing facilities, for all race and ethnic categories (White 4.88%; Black 6.76%; AIAN 9.29%; Asian 5.84%; NHOPI 16.24%; Hispanic 5.22%), but it is not listed in the table, in keeping with the convention used in this report, as explained earlier. 26 Sylvia Moreno, “In the Spotlight, A Community's Poverty,” Washington Post, May 10, 1998, page A1. 27Anne Raver, “Town of Worn Bootstraps Lifts Itself Up,” New York Times, August 21, 2003, Section F, page 1.

23

Still Living Without the Basics

Alabama, where Blacks constitute more than 25 percent of each state’s total population, more than half of all people who lack plumbing in each of these states are Blacks (Table 6). This is similar for AIAN and Hispanic race/ethnicity categories (Tables 7 and 8). The AIAN populations in Alaska, New Mexico, and Arizona comprise from about 5 percent (in Arizona) to just over 15 percent (in Alaska) of the state population, but well over half of all people lacking plumbing in each of these states are from the AIAN race group. Table 6. Percentage of Black or African American Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, Top 10 Ranked States, 2000 28 Black or African American Race Only Overall Population Population Lacking (all counted races) Population Complete Plumbing Facilities Percentage Difference State of Total Between Percentage of Total State (1) and (2) Total State Total Lacking Total Total Population Population Plumbing Lacking (1) Plumbing (2) DC MS LA SC GA MD AL NC VA DE

28

536,373 2,749,237 4,332,884 3,876,875 7,952,484 5,162,381 4,332,570 7,795,305 6,846,703 758,963

5,508 23,800 27,289 22,092 45,094 23,421 24,962 45,335 45,332 2,530

326,611 990,315 1,378,421 1,130,688 2,244,187 1,416,133 1,104,937 1,653,612 1,306,377 140,774

60.89 36.02 31.81 29.16 28.22 27.43 25.50 21.21 19.08 18.55

3,603 16,746 16,979 13,154 23,455 10,730 13,416 20,724 18,205 1,069

65.41 70.36 62.22 59.54 52.01 45.81 53.75 45.71 40.16 42.25

–4.52 –34.34 –30.41 –30.38 –23.79 –18.38 –28.24 –24.50 –21.08 –23.70

Source: Advanced Query Data Finder of the U.S. Census Bureau, http://advancedquery.census.gov, accessed June 4, 2004.

24

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 7. Percentage of AIAN Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, Top 10 Ranked States, 2000 29 AIAN Race Only Overall Population Population Lacking (all counted races) Population Complete Plumbing Facilities Percentage Difference State Percentage of Total Between (1) Total of Total State and (2) Total Lacking Total State Total Population Plumbing Population Lacking (1) Plumbing (2) AK NM SD OK MT AZ ND WY WA ID

607,641 1,782,718 726,335 3,338,046 877,381 5,020,851 618,494 479,676 5,757,636 1,262,397

38,561 33,841 4,288 16,890 5,359 64,238 2,024 2,085 28,272 6,442

93,355 168,670 58,550 259,950 53,031 246,667 30,253 11,021 88,174 16,897

15.36 9.46 8.06 7.79 6.04 4.91 4.89 2.30 1.53 1.34

22,842 21,239 1,904 2,108 528 37,218 235 223 882 302

59.24 62.76 44.40 12.48 9.85 57.94 11.61 10.70 3.12 4.69

–43.87 –53.30 –36.34 –4.69 –3.81 –53.02 –6.72 –8.40 –1.59 –3.35

Table 8. Percentage of Hispanic Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, Top 10 Ranked States, 2000 30 Hispanic Ethnicity Only Overall Population Population Lacking (all counted races) Population Complete Plumbing Facilities Percentage Difference State Percentage of Total Between Total of Total State (1) and (2) Total Lacking Total State Total Population Plumbing Population) Lacking (1) Plumbing (2) NM CA TX AZ NV CO FL NY NJ IL 29 30

1,782,718 33,052,189 20,290,302 5,020,851 1,964,572 4,198,094 15,593,328 18,395,693 8,219,436 12,096,973

33,841 273,629 167,633 64,238 9,498 17,574 80,332 155,482 45,090 68,220

752,793 10,782,193 6,547,417 1,270,930 389,461 718,590 2,630,311 2,792,797 1,096,410 1,511,718

42.23 32.62 32.27 25.31 19.82 17.12 16.87 15.18 13.34 12.50

7,985 156,731 106,761 14,736 3,842 6,076 29,389 59,162 17,629 23,697

23.60 57.28 63.69 22.94 40.45 34.57 36.58 38.05 39.10 34.74

18.63 –24.66 –31.42 2.37 –20.63 –17.46 –19.72 –22.87 –25.76 –22.24

Ibid. Ibid.

25

Still Living Without the Basics

In Which States Are Basic Water Services Most Lacking? State-Level Analysis Fourteen states, including New York, California, Texas, and Virginia, have figures above the national average of 0.64 percent of total occupied households lacking adequate plumbing. Alaska has the highest: 6.32 percent, or 14,003 households, lacking complete plumbing facilities. Nebraska has the lowest: 0.36 percent, or 2,408 households. Calculations for numbers of people show that California has the largest number, with more than 240,000 people (or 85,460 occupied households) lacking complete plumbing. Wyoming has the least, with about 2,500 people (or 1,011 occupied households). The top 10 states with the highest numbers for households with inadequate plumbing (Table 9) hold more than half of such households in the United States. Within these states, the AIAN population has the highest level of inadequate plumbing – an average of 3.21 percent of AIAN households. Of these 10 states, 5 have had an average 25 percent increase in households lacking plumbing facilities, and the other 5 have had an average 24 percent decrease. These 10 states had an average overall increase of 16 percent in the number of total households lacking complete plumbing services from 1990 to 2000. There are myriad reasons why the percentages decreased in some states and increased in others. These include different levels of investment in water and sanitation infrastructure and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, in-migration of low-wage laborers, and existing employment and infrastructure base. Table 9. Total and Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, in Top 10 States Ranked for 2000 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Percentage Change Percentage U.S./State From 1990 to Total Percentage Total Percentage Change from 2000 in Total (2000) (2000) (1990) (1990) 1990 to 2000 Households United States California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Illinois Arizona Virginia Ohio North Carolina

670,986 85,460 58,418 54,853 30,134 24,450 23,959 21,088 19,550 19,407 19,295

0.64 0.74 0.83 0.74 0.48 0.51 0.52 1.11 0.72 0.44 0.62

721,693 57,974 50,428 56,844 22,061 26,355 21,572 18,352 35,788 24,394 33,192

0.78 0.56 0.76 0.94 0.43 0.59 0.51 1.34 1.56 0.60 1.32

–7.03 47.41 15.84 –3.5 36.59 –7.23 11.07 14.91 –45.37 –20.44 –41.87

14.72 10.8 6.29 21.78 23.43 6.25 9.27 38.9 17.77 8.76 24.43

County-Level Analysis As we took a closer look at the counties within the states (Map 7), we found several areas lacking in plumbing services that were not possible to identify at the state level. In terms of percentage of households lacking plumbing, the highest numbers showed up in the colonias along the Texas and New Mexico borders with Mexico; in several counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama; along the Washington border with Canada; in South Dakota and the predominantly Indian counties in Oklahoma; and around the Four Corners region in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Almost all of Alaskan boroughs and census areas and the great majority of the municipios in Puerto Rico have higher percentages of households lacking plumbing than show up in any other regions. Interestingly, 16 of the 20 counties

26

Still Living Without the Basics

27

Still Living Without the Basics

in the United States (including Puerto Rico here) with the highest percentages of households lacking plumbing facilities – ranging from 10.66 percent in Alta Vega municipio in Puerto Rico to 51.87 percent in Wade Hampton census area in Alaska – are in Alaska and Puerto Rico. Of the remaining four, three are in the Four Corners region, and one is in South Dakota. If we look at the population figures, we see that Apache and Navajo counties in northeastern Arizona, the colonias in southern Texas, and several highly urban counties in California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida show some of the largest populations with inadequate plumbing. Together, the top 20 counties with the highest figures for population lacking complete plumbing hold more than a quarter of the total estimated U.S. population lacking proper plumbing services. Rural-Urban Analysis The rural-urban analysis for the states shows that the states with the highest percentage of rural and rural-farm homes lacking proper plumbing are fairly similar across both areas (Table 10), with the exception of Pennsylvania, which has a higher percentage of its farm households with plumbing. Alaska stands out as the state with the highest percentages across all the three areas – urban, rural, and rural-farm. Most of the affected urban areas are in densely populated cities on the coasts or rivers in the South, Southwest, Northeast, and Hawaii. Table 10. Percentage of Rural, Rural-Farm, and Urban Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, in Top 10 States, Ranked for 2000 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Rank Rural Rural-Farm Urban State % State % State % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Alaska Arizona New Mexico Hawaii Kentucky Virginia West Virginia Utah Maine Montana

16.89 6.20 5.73 4.55 1.71 1.66 1.55 1.43 1.26 1.18

Alaska Hawaii Arizona Pennsylvania West Virginia New Mexico Maine Virginia Wisconsin Kentucky

11.63 7.32 3.64 2.75 2.51 2.38 2.38 2.09 1.89 1.85

Alaska New York District of Columbia California Texas Massachusetts Louisiana Hawaii Mississippi Rhode Island

1.04 0.86 0.85 0.73 0.65 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.56

Rural households in the United States total 226,967, and more than 600,000 people live in homes that lack adequate plumbing. Another 6,868 rural households, or more than 23,000 people, in Puerto Rico and the Island Areas live in similar or worse conditions. The 10 states with the highest populations lacking plumbing in rural-farm and urban areas are shown in Table 11.

28

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 11. Estimated Rural, Rural-Farm, and Urban Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, in Top 10 States, Ranked for 2000 Estimated Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Rank Rural Urban Rural-Farm State Pop. State Pop. State Pop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Texas Arizona Alaska Virginia Kentucky North Carolina New Mexico Pennsylvania Tennessee Ohio

41,411 36,529 35,392 30,926 30,230 27,044 25,648 21,416 21,213 20,079

Wisconsin Ohio Kentucky Pennsylvania Missouri Texas Indiana Minnesota Virginia Iowa

2,588 2,442 2,383 2,349 2,031 1,840 1,805 1,362 1,331 1,315

California New York Texas Florida Illinois New Jersey Pennsylvania Massachusetts Michigan Ohio

226,584 137,966 109,131 66,143 56,243 42,832 39,701 36,048 30,973 29,166

In the top 10 rural states shown in Table 11, plumbing is lacking in 1.5 percent of the rural households. This number is almost 1.5 times the national rural average and 3 times the national urban average. In the case of rural-farm populations in the top 10 states shown in Table 11, a ruralfarm resident is almost three times as likely as an average urban American to lack complete plumbing facilities. In general, rural residents are 2 times and rural-farm residents are 2.5 times more likely to lack plumbing than their urban counterparts. Ethnic Distribution In terms of ethnic distribution, Whites have higher percentages of households without adequate plumbing in the socioeconomically marginalized areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Alaska, and Maine (Maps 8 and 9), and Blacks have higher percentages in Virginia, New York, Louisiana, Alabama, North and South Carolina, Oregon and Montana (Maps 10 and 11). Hispanic households that are affected have higher percentages in most of the New England states and in the states with larger Latino or Spanish-speaking populations – California, Texas, and New Mexico. The most affected AIAN communities are concentrated in the Four Corners region and in Alaska.

29

Still Living Without the Basics

30

Still Living Without the Basics

31

Still Living Without the Basics

32

Still Living Without the Basics

33

Still Living Without the Basics

Why Are Water and Sanitation Services Important? Several studies have documented the critical importance of water and sanitation systems. A 1996 study by the University of Texas System’s Texas-Mexico Border Health Coordination Office found that diseases such as hepatitis A, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and tuberculosis occurred at a much higher rate in the colonias than in the rest of the state.31 The rate of reported hepatitis A, for example, was more than double the statewide rate. Other health problems included high rates of gastroenteritis and problems related to water quality. Medical services are rarely available, which compounds health problems in the colonias. For children, these problems result in slower growth and lower educational development rates. Improved availability of water and sanitation has been among the greatest contributors to improved public health in industrialized countries. The eradication of the diseases mentioned above came about because of the implementation of basic sanitation and piped water systems in urban and rural areas. When these services are lacking, public health suffers, and with it economic growth, because ill people are inefficient students, workers, and contributors to society. It is for this reason that industrialized nations spent billions of dollars on water and sanitation during the development initiatives of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Still, as is evidenced in this report, there are groups of people who have not received the benefits of these initiatives. Clearly, one of the key steps to eliminating persistent poverty in these areas will be improved water services. Figure 1 demonstrates the impacts that investments in water and sanitation infrastructure can have on health.32 Those nations with a higher percentage of the population served by safe drinking water have fewer deaths of children under the age of five. Egypt, Pakistan, and Sudan were significant outliers in the trends. Their situation might be explained by their substantial problems of political violence and chronic problems with developing effective mother-child health campaigns during the 1990s. Figure 1: Relationship Between Access to Safe Drinking Water and Child Mortality Access to safe drinking water saves lives

Cited in Border Environment Research Reports (July 1996), Improving the Quality of Drinking Water in Colonias in the Ciudad Juárez–El Paso Area, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, http://www.scerp.org/scerp/docs/berr3.html. 32 UNICEF, State of the World’s Children 2000, United Nations, UNICEF, New York, New York, http://www.unicef.org, accessed May 2, 2004. 31

34

Still Living Without the Basics

Typhoid, cholera, hepatitis A, and various other gastrointestinal maladies associated with waterborne disease were common in U.S. cities and rural areas through the early 1900s. As municipalities seized control of urban water systems, public health steadily improved in these areas through the first part of the 20th century.33 It improved in rural areas with a steady increase in water and sanitation infrastructure investment, starting in the 1930s, accelerating in the 1950s, and further increasing substantially in the 1960s and 1970s, when government invested in basic services as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives.34 Since 1970, the number of people living without access to basic services and the number of waterborne disease outbreaks in rural America have steadily declined, as investments in both infrastructure and technical assistance to help rural areas develop water infrastructure have combined with the development of national regulations to protect groundwater and drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1973. This act was strengthened in 1986 and amended in 1996 to provide both an ongoing process for assessing risk to drinking water systems and processes for stakeholders to assess the feasibility of implementing new safety rules. It is important to recognize a major concern for those working to provide water and sanitation infrastructure: While water infrastructure may be in place in many parts of the country, people may not be drinking safe water. In 1999–2000, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 39 outbreaks of waterborne disease in 23 states, affecting 2,098 people. This was the highest number of reported outbreaks since 1991–1992. The number of cases, however, should be distinguished from their seriousness. While there were only 32 outbreaks of waterborne disease in 1993–1994 (Figure 2), more than 400,000 people in Milwaukee, for instance, were affected by Cryptosporidiosis, the diarrheal disease caused by a microscopic parasite Cryptosporidium parvum.35 Figure 2: Number of Reported Drinking Water Outbreaks, 1991–2000 Number of Drinking Water Outbreaks, 1991–2000

1991–92

1993–94

1995–96 Time Period

1997–98

1999–00

33 National Academy of Sciences Committee on Privatization Services, Privatization of Water Services in the United States: An Assessment of Issues and Experience, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000. 34 Dennis Warner and Jaris S. Dajani, Water and Sewer Development in Rural America: A Study of Community Impacts, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1975. 35 Sherline H. Lee, Deborah Levy, Gunther Craun, Michael Beach, and Rebecca Calderon, Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks— United States, 1999–2000, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (SS08), Surveillance Summaries, Atlanta, November 22, 2002, pages 1–28, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5108a1.htm, accessed May 4, 2004.

35

Still Living Without the Basics

In addition, USEPA reports that 91 percent of the total U.S. population is drinking water that meets established health and safety standards for maximum contaminant levels. This percentage varies for USEPA regions. It is 62 percent in the northeastern states (EPA Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont); 76 percent in the Mid-Atlantic states and territories (EPA Region 2: New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands); 83 percent for EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington); and over 90 percent for all other regions. U.S. Geological Survey samples of drinking water from 12 water supply systems from 1999 to 2001 found atrazine and simazine in 85 percent of all raw and finished water samples and triazineherbicide degradation in 60 percent of raw and finished water samples.36 Volatile organic compounds such as methyl teri-butyl ether have been found in 9 percent of community water systems (at higher concentrations in systems serving urban rather than rural areas).37 All these compounds have impacts on human health if continuously ingested in large enough quantities over time. While drinking water is relatively safe in the United States, the number of threats to its quality is never-ending. Increasingly, one hears stories of communities once dependent on private wells that have had to move to a centralized supply because of pollution of well supplies or diminishing supplies caused by development or other pressures. The number is even greater for community wastewater issues. In response to the 2000 Census, the residents in these communities are likely to have answered that they had complete plumbing facilities. In considering the challenge of serving those who still do not have access to basic services, it will be important to remember those communities that may have to be transformed from having individual wells to community water and wastewater systems in order to protect public health and the environment. The cost to the communities is likely to be just as great, if not greater. And in many of these communities, income levels are not likely to be high enough to support the investment in infrastructure without assistance.

Factors Affecting People Living Without Basic Services So how, in the richest nation on earth, do whole populations find themselves still living without plumbing facilities? Socioeconomic Conditions For some populations that lack service, such as Alaska Natives, it is difficult to install and maintain water infrastructure because of distance and climatic conditions. Sociocultural and economic factors also are critical. Some Alaska Native villages, suffering from high unemployment and poverty, are reluctant to put in conventional water and sanitation systems because the cost of installing and maintaining systems in that environment would be unacceptably high. These factors explain, in part, Alaska’s ranking as the state with the highest percentage of its population living with inadequate access to complete plumbing services. But a range of other issues at the local level also come into play, related to social organization and leadership, availability of technical expertise, and lack of access to funding to support water infrastructure development. These same conditions affect access to complete plumbing facilities in other parts of the United States where households still lack access to water and sanitation.

36 U.S. Geological Survey, Pesticides in Selected Water Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 2001, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/whatsnew.html, accessed December 10, 2003. 37 USGS, MTBE and other Volatile Organic Compounds—New Findings and Implications on the Quality of Source Waters Used for Drinking Water Supplies, Reston, Virginia, USGS, 2001, http://water.usgs.gov/FS/fs10501/, accessed December 10, 2003.

36

Still Living Without the Basics

The relationship between poverty and inadequate plumbing is clear. Of the 670,986 households without access to complete plumbing facilities in the United States, one-third, or 222,906, had an income in 1999 that was below the federal poverty level. Roughly the same proportions applied in a rural-urban breakdown – 30.82 percent of all urban households lacking proper plumbing were poor, and 37.92 percent of rural homes lacking plumbing were poor (Table 12). Table 12. Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities With Income in 1999 Below the Federal Poverty Level Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities % of Units With Income Below 1999 Total Poverty Level U.S. – Overall U.S. – Urban U.S. – Rural

670,986 444,019 226,967

33.22 30.82 37.92

Nationwide, 1.79 percent of all poor households lacked plumbing, as did 1.37 percent of all urban poor households and 3.52 percent of all rural poor households. Thus, a poor rural household is almost 2.5 times as likely as a poor urban household in the United States to lack proper plumbing. Of all the states, Alaska had the highest proportion: 18.85 percent of all its homes that were poor also lacked proper plumbing. Kansas had the lowest proportion, at 0.83 percent. Taking into account only the homes that lacked plumbing facilities, New Mexico had the highest percentage that were also poor – 50.37 percent of its homes without plumbing were also below the federal poverty level (Table 13). Table 13. Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities and With Income in 1999 Below the Poverty Level, Top 10 States Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities State % of Units With Income Below 1999 Total Poverty Level New Mexico Arizona West Virginia Kentucky Mississippi Louisiana Alabama Texas Arkansas South Dakota

11,905 21,088 7,451 14,947 9,015 10,717 11,005 54,853 8,327 1,858

50.37 47.60 46.84 46.58 46.00 42.10 41.98 39.89 39.59 39.56

We also found that owner-occupied households below the poverty level were statistically more likely than renter-occupied households to lack access to complete plumbing facilities, probably because of regulations that require landlords to provide basic facilities. Of the owner-occupied households living in poverty, 2.02 percent, or 88,211 households, lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2000. Of the renter-occupied households below the poverty level, 1.67 percent, or 134,695 households, reported lacking these facilities (Table 14). While people living in poverty were almost 4 times more likely not to have complete plumbing facilities than those living above the poverty level, in pure numeric terms more households above the poverty level than below who lack complete water and sanitation. In some cases, the explanation may be that these people have chosen to live in isolation.

37

Still Living Without the Basics

Or, because of high home prices on the coasts, even people with incomes above the poverty level may live in substandard housing. Table 14 also shows that households above the poverty level were statistically less likely to have incomplete plumbing facilities than households below the poverty level. Only 0.37 percent of owner-occupied houses above the poverty level and 0.75 percent of renter-occupied houses above the poverty level lacked complete facilities. The percentages demonstrate that income is a significant variable in whether people have complete plumbing services. But the fact that the majority of people living without complete water and sanitation facilities were not below the poverty level in 2000 indicates the importance of recognizing the geographic and social aspects of water services. Even relatively wealthy people may lack certain services because they live in larger communities that lack services. Table 14. Plumbing Facilities by Household Type, 2000 Households Total Owner-occupied Income in 1999 below poverty level Complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities Income in 1999 at or above poverty level Complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities Renter-occupied Income in 1999 below poverty level Complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities Income in 1999 at or above poverty level Complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities

Total 105,480,101 69,816,513 4,371,712 4,283,501 88,211 65,444,801 65,204,152 240,649 35,663,588 8,086,254 7,951,559 134,695 27,577,334 27,369,903 207,431

Percentage

2.02%

0.37%

1.67%

0.75%

Ruralness A more significant finding is the relationship between ruralness and access to complete plumbing facilities. Rural households, as has been discussed above, are more likely than urban ones to lack access to complete plumbing facilities. Furthermore, all the counties where the percentage without complete plumbing facilities is particularly high are non-metro—such as Star County, Texas, and Navajo County, Arizona. As Table 1 showed, this has been the case for at least the past 50 years. By their very nature, rural communities are hard to reach with basic services. They are also less likely to have the human, financial, and built capital (e.g., buildings, facilities, plants) necessary for the implementation of improved water systems. Equally important is the relationship among ruralness, lack of proper plumbing, and level of poverty. As Table 15 shows, the more desolate (less populated) the rural area, the more likely it is that a household that lacks proper plumbing is also poor, by as much as 39 percent.

38

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 15. Percentage of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities With Income Below Poverty Level in 1999 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Rural Level U.S. – Rural U.S. – Rural – in a place Rural – in a place of 2,500 or more people Rural – in a place of 1,000 to 2,500 people Rural – in a place of fewer than 1,000 people Rural – not in a place

Total

Percentage With Income in 1999 Below Poverty Level

226,967 41,704

37.92 35.40

9,156

29.51

13,288

37.45

19,260

36.80

185,263

38.49

Nationally, rural communities are also more likely to be in violation of SDWA health and safety regulations. The SDWIS 2003 Factoids demonstrate that smaller water systems are significantly more likely to be in violation of health and safety standards. In keeping with that finding, this analysis demonstrates that systems in violation of SDWA standards tend to be in counties where more people lack complete plumbing facilities. Cost and Quality of Water and Sanitation Services An additional issue of concern is the quality of the water people are drinking. While we did not have access to specific water quality data by locality for analysis in this report, USEPA databases on drinking source water quality indicate that 10 percent of surface-based source water did not meet USEPA clean water and safe drinking water standards.38 In addition, SDWIS indicates that 8.2 percent of very small to medium-size community water systems that meet the needs of populations below 10,000 had health safety violations in 2003; these situations affected a total of 4,242,015 people.39 Because rural areas have fewer people to pay the cost of providing services, the cost of water service is higher overall in rural than in urban areas.40 We used statistical tools to analyze the cost of water service in areas where a relatively high percentage of the population reported lacking plumbing services and found a weak relationship between the cost of water services and rural households without plumbing (R2 of 0.018). Nonetheless, this relationship was significant (0.000 level). Additional analysis shows that the cost of water services is rising at a higher rate than inflation, especially in rural areas. Many observers are concerned that replacements or upgrades of obsolete water systems in much of America, combined with the costs of complying with safe drinking water standards, are likely to raise the cost of water infrastructure even more in the near future. While the overall percentage of household income going to pay for water and sanitation services in the United States is among the lowest in the world, there is a danger that certain portions of the population may USEPA, Office of Watersheds, Oceans and Wetlands, Index of Watershed Indicators, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/iwi/; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/factoids_2003.pdf; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pivottables.html, accessed May 25, 2004. There were 49,497 very small, small, and medium-size community water systems in the United States, of which 4,057 had health safety violations in 2003. 39 USEPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), 2004, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis/, accessed May 2, 2004. 40 John McCarthy, Anna Mehrotra, Stephen Gasteyer, Rahul Vaswani, and Blanca Surgeon, "The Price of Good Water: Water and Sanitation Affordability," Rural Matters, Spring 2004, Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Washington, D.C. 38

39

Still Living Without the Basics

find themselves unable to afford water services without sacrificing other basic needs, even though water services may be available.41 Demographics Our analysis shows that the breakdown by age of the people lacking water and sanitation services more or less mirrors the age distribution for the general population. The elderly (age 65 years and older) make up just over 10 percent of the people who lack plumbing services (Table 16). People younger than 15 constitute just over 32 percent of the total population that lacks plumbing facilities. The elderly and children are most at risk from the consequences of waterborne disease. For this reason, it will be important to continue to track the access to services as well as the quality of water and sanitation services specifically for these age groups. Table 16. Population in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, by Age Group, 2000 Population in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Above 15 and Below 5 years Below 15 years 65 years and above below 65 years Total Percentage Total Percentage Total Percentage Total Percentage U.S.

143,117

8.01

443,291

24.80

1,019,009

57.01

181,897

10.18

Factors Influencing Trends in Access to Water and Sanitation Socioeconomic Immigration As documented above, people living without access to plumbing services are not evenly distributed across ethnic groups or across geographic areas. American Indians and Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and African Americans all disproportionately lack access to services. Similarly, the populations living with inadequate access to services are highest in four regions—the Four Corners region of the Southwest; the Black Belt across the southern United States; California; and the Mexican border regions of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Of these four regions, California is the most striking because in this area the population that reported lacking services actually increased between 1990 and 2000. At first glance, this increase appears strange because during most of that decade California’s economy boomed, led by the dotcom boom in Silicon Valley. We hypothesize that two factors contributed to the rise of populations in California living without access to water services. First, the boom of the 1990s led to an increase in housing prices that far outstripped inflation and earning power for many people in California. This situation was exacerbated when the economy began a downturn at the end of the decade. As the economy soured, a relatively high number of people found themselves either homeless or living in substandard housing. The socioeconomic conditions between 1995 and 2000, for example, led 345,573 Hispanics to leave California for nearby states.42 Second, the boom did open up high numbers of very low-paying service jobs, which attracted immigrant labor. We suspect that most of the immigrants came from Central and South America, where weakened economies made the agricultural and service sector jobs in California seem an attractive economic opportunity. This Ibid. The net out-migration in this period was 345,573. Actually, 505,947 Hispanics left California but 160,374 Hispanics in-migrated from other states into California during the same period. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t25.html, accessed May 19, 2004.

41 42

40

Still Living Without the Basics

relative prosperity, though, did not provide these immigrants with adequate remuneration to pay for housing with improved services, especially in California’s inflated housing market. The Census records show that a total of 660,076 Hispanic immigrants moved to California during the latter half of the 1990s.43 The large majority of these immigrants presumably worked in lowpaying service sector positions. Of a total of 5,781,105 Hispanic workers above the age of 16 in California in 2000, more than 41 percent were employed in medium-, low- and very low-paying jobs or were unemployed (Table 17).44 In addition, 19.55 percent of the Hispanic population in California between the ages of 18 and 64 years were below the poverty level in 1999.45 Table 17. Number of Hispanics Employed by Occupation in California, 2000 Occupation

Cooks and food preparation workers; waiters and waitresses Other food preparation and serving workers, including supervisors Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations Secretaries and administrative assistants Agricultural workers, including supervisors Carpenters, painters, paperhangers, woodworkers, metal and plastic workers Construction laborers; other construction workers and helpers Food-processing workers Textile, apparel, and furnishings workers Bus drivers; driver/sales workers and truck drivers Motor vehicle operators, except bus and truck drivers Laborers and material movers, hand; other material moving workers, except laborers Unemployed, with no work experience since 1995 Total

Employed 257,683 100,843 486,966 92,185 283,245 266,255 140,504 40,393 146,848 184,004 9,374 291,749 80,340 2,380,389

Tulare County, California, the poorest county in California, is an example. Tulare County is largely agricultural and employs a high number of people as agricultural laborers. According to the Census, more than 1,500 people in this county live without access to complete plumbing services. Onsite observation by Public Citizen, a national nonprofit organization, revealed “communities without running water, many issues of contaminated water from the fertilizers and pesticides used in farming, and communities that buy their water from tanker trucks for 25 cents a gallon.”46 Housing Development In contrast, the decrease in the numbers of people living without access to basic services in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi may be attributable to marginally better economic conditions. With the improved economy, people began to move out of substandard housing units into manufactured housing units, which often come with piped water units included. The number of people living in mobile homes from 1990 to 2000 increased, on average in the three states, by 38.38 percent (Table 18). A critical issue of concern is that community or noncommunity water systems that serve mobile home communities are more prone than other water systems to be in violation of state and federal standards for health and the environment. Thus, while people may have access to piped water, the water they are drinking may not be up to standards. U.S. Census 2000, Migration by Race and Hispanic Origin for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: 2000, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t25.html, accessed May 19, 2004. 44 Advanced Query Data Finder, http://advancedquery.census.gov, accessed May 19, 2004. 45Also, more than half (52.15 percent) of all poor Hispanic residents of California are in the age group of 18 to 64 years. Source: U.S. Census 2000, http://www.fact.finder.census.gov, accessed May 19, 2004. 46Communication between the authors and John Gibler and Sara Grusky of Public Citizen, "Water for All Campaign,” Stephen Gasteyer, May 15, 2004. 43

41

Still Living Without the Basics

Table 18. Mobile Occupied Housing Units in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 1990–2000 Mobile Occupied Housing Units State 2000 1990 % Change from 1990 Alabama Louisiana Mississippi

269,000 204,912 168,520

187,613 161,751 114,900

43.38 26.68 46.67

Clearly, these are associations, as opposed to verifiable relationships. But they do provide an insight into some of the hypotheses that will need to be developed and tested as we try to understand further the relationships that contribute to the access to or loss of water and sanitation service. What Has Been and Is Being Done to Address These Issues? The progress made since the 1950s has been the result of synergy among government investments, community initiatives, and the assistance provided by several nongovernmental organizations. The federal government has developed nationwide programs such as the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to capitalize improvements in access to and quality of water and sanitation services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provides a combination of loans and grants to rural communities for the same purpose. In addition, federal funds are available for infrastructure, including Community Development Block Grants and grants from agencies such as the Indian Health Service – the latter obviously targeted toward American Indians and Alaska Natives. In addition, the federal government now funds an infrastructure of technical assistance programs designed to aid communities in improving access to water and sanitation services, such as the Rural Community Assistance Partnership, the National Rural Water Association, and the Environmental Finance Centers. The USEPA also funds applied research and demonstration programs such as the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse and the Technical Assistance Centers. While this institutional infrastructure has made a significant difference in providing water and sanitation services over the past 30 years, it is important that these institutions are maintained for the future. The challenges facing water systems are increasing rather than decreasing.

Ensuring That Water Infrastructure Is Adequately Maintained While a greater proportion of the U.S. population than ever before has access to water and sanitation services, new threats are emerging to those services, as follows: § New immigrant laborer populations are moving in to work as farm laborers or in other low-paid sectors. These populations may live in substandard conditions, lacking basic services. This risk is high if workers continue to come into the country as undocumented workers, especially in rural areas, leaving them open to exploitation by their employers. § Water infrastructure in the United States was installed over three development waves: the early 1900s, the 1930s, and the 1950s–1970s. Because of the lifespan of the materials used during each of these building eras, infrastructure replacement for all three is likely to be needed in the next 20 years. This will be tremendously costly, at a time when government resources are scarcer than in the past. If local communities are expected to shoulder the cost of replacement themselves, especially in rural areas, concerns about maintaining basic infrastructure will increase. § New environmental conditions and elements threaten our water supply. As regulations are developed to try to address these threats, the costs of treatment are likely to rise. Treatment

42

Still Living Without the Basics

costs will be especially problematic for rural community water systems, because they are not likely to have economies of scale to help them afford the treatment technology. Even as the United States continues to provide some of the best and least costly access to basic services in the world, new challenges are threatening those services. The combination of aging infrastructure, new population distribution, and growing demands creates complex challenges to overcome for ensuring that people have access to services. Indeed, in a time when both federal and state governments claim record deficits and are cutting popular programs, communities are facing expensive new demands for water and sanitation services. Many small, low-income communities are looking at costs in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to repair, upgrade, or expand water systems to meet new needs. For example, a study by the West Central Initiative in Minnesota found that in the west central counties of Minnesota – where the percentages of people without plumbing service are lower than the national average – communities were increasingly faced with the challenge of repairing or replacing aging infrastructure. The study found that these communities faced a funding gap of $813 million to upgrade infrastructure systems, many of which were initially installed in the 1930s.47 Donaldson, Minnesota, is one of those communities. With a population of only 57, a median household income of $15,938 in 1999, and an annual city operating budget of less then $15,000, the city was dumbfounded by the need to eliminate two serious public health hazards: untreated sewage that was being discharged into a road ditch, and a half-dozen rundown housing structures that were homes to vermin. The municipal storm water system, built in 1936, discharged into a highway ditch west of town. Septic systems installed for indoor plumbing in the 1950s and 1960s let the effluent discharge directly into the city storm water system. A high water table and tight clay soils made drainfields very expensive, and they typically performed poorly. Although this type of system was effective in getting the wastewater out of town, the untreated sewage draining down the highway ditch created a public health violation. In addition to the costs of constructing a new wastewater system, the city faced penalties and fines from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The city council also identified six properties that were in severe stages of neglect. Some had basements that had six to eight feet of stagnant water, and others had dead animal carcasses and feces. All housed some type of vermin. The structures had broken glass doors and windows, making it very easy for children to gain access to the dangerous environment. Forcing the homeowners to clean up the properties was not an option because the costs were insurmountable. With the help of intermediaries to provide technical assistance, Donaldson has been able to contract with an engineering firm to develop a solution that fits within the financial constraints of the community. It also was able to secure a combination of loans and grants from state and federal agencies, and it worked out a way to lower costs by doing some of the work itself, using local labor and resources.48 While this case is taken from Minnesota, communities throughout the country are grappling with similar issues. The critical point is that many communities will have to deal with such issues in the future, even though the vast majority of U.S. residents have access to water and sanitation services.

West Central Initiative, West Central Initiative Infrastructure Study for West Central Minnesota Communities, 2000, http://www.wcif.org/publications/infrastructurestudy.shtml, accessed May 24, 2004. 48 Case study taken from the Midwest Rural Community Assistance Program, New Prague, Minnesota. 47

43

Still Living Without the Basics

Key Program and Policy Concerns Related to These Issues We think of water and sanitation as a given in the United States. Yet the building and maintenance of the infrastructure systems that make these resources available to us involve expensive technologies and engineering expertise. More important are the resources that are managed through social and institutional relationships. USEPA estimates the shortfall in resources for infrastructure in the United States at between $200 billion and $500 billion over the next 20 years. Government resources will be critically important in addressing this gap in funding. But government resources will also need to leverage private and nonprofit resources. Ultimately, it is the communities and the counties that will incur these costs. It would be a mistake to assume that the money needed to resolve this issue should be restricted to resources for pipes and fittings. The provision and maintenance of water and sanitation over time involves building the civic and social infrastructure so that communities themselves have the capacity to make decisions about the scope and type of infrastructure that will ensure them water and sanitation that is safe and affordable. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute in California, for example, has been calling for more attention to the soft path (development of the social infrastructure) to ensure access to adequate water and sanitation all over the world, including the United States. He argues that advances in management and delivery of water resources of the last two centuries have come about largely through implementing hard systems, meaning technology and physical infrastructure that require high capital investment. Often these built and financial capital investments have been made without regard to local desires and needs and without attention to issues of representation and social justice.49 As a result, we have the community along Coal Run Road, outside Zanesville, Ohio, which was systematically denied water services until recently, even though it was located next to a significant urbanized area. The lack of water services had much more to do with social injustice than with technology and financing.50 Similarly, the Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill documented systematic lack of access to water services by African American neighborhoods in the middle of larger metropolitan North Carolina communities.51 Critically related to these concerns is the very serious concern about the quality of drinking water. As cited above, USEPA has found that significant portions of the population are subjected to water that does not meet standards of safety and quality. A good portion of community water system violations of SDWA standards are actually administrative in nature, indicating that management capacity is as critical as technology. The infrastructure investments of the future must combine reinvestment in physical infrastructure with investment in a civic infrastructure. This civic infrastructure must involve improved training of local water operators and water boards and investment of the time and effort to build participatory networks that can create local support for water system maintenance and source water protection. It may involve acceptance of alternative technologies that deliver safe drinking water at lower cost. The soft path should provide opportunities for continual improvement in access to water and sanitation through building human and social capacity. As a society, we have made substantial progress since the 1950s in providing our citizens with access to water and sanitation systems. In percentage terms, the number of people without services is small, Peter Gleick, The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. James Dao, “Ohio Town’s Water at Last Runs Past a Color Line,” New York Times, February 17, 2004, page A1. 51 Personal communication between the authors and the Environmental Finance Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, November 2003. 49 50

44

Still Living Without the Basics

yet more than 670,000 households–close to 2 million people–still lack these very basic services. Getting water to this population will require explicitly addressing the environmental justice issues that are embedded in social and economic frameworks related to access to water services. In addition, as costs of managing water systems rise, more low-income residents will be hardpressed to pay water bills, even as the states are cutting programs that subsidize low-income residents. Ultimately, a significant effort that draws on government and private resources is needed to address the gap in water service and make certain it slows in the next decade. This report shows that the lack of plumbing services is still very real for almost 2 million Americans. While the rural-urban divide in the provision of these services has narrowed in the last decade, it persists and is intrinsically related to the socioeconomic status of the people who lack these services. Rural populations are still at a larger risk of lacking proper services, as infrastructure ages and traditional funding for improvement programs is slowly being reduced. Across the United States, in general, minority communities are affected more acutely. There are wide fluctuations across geographic locations and areas. Some prominent areas are the Four Corners region and the underserved parts of the Northeast and the South. Alaska stands out as a single state that needs much improvement in infrastructure. Given Alaska’s unique condition, policy makers must pay attention to enhancing services there that are socially acceptable, economically feasible, and environmentally sustainable. A closer look at the numbers within states, at the county or Census-designated place levels, provides a clearer understanding of the reality of lack in plumbing services. The information at the substate level, disaggregated, also allows for relative geographic comparisons within and among states and permits a clearer comprehension of the larger nationwide picture. Our hypothesis and affirmed assumptions are based on this examination and understanding of the numbers at the disaggregated level, which are shown in the pages ahead and which the readers might find useful. In the future, we hope to take this research toward a more complex analysis of the links among social, economic, geographic, environmental, and public health variables that affect the positive outcomes in services for traditionally and currently underserved communities. Our findings will allow us to understand better how to enhance communities’ capacity for improving infrastructure and services and ultimately achieving sustainable development. The following maps and ranking tables disaggregate the population without plumbing for all states at the county level and for the D.C., Puerto Rico, and the island areas to the Census designated place (CDP) level.

45

Still Living Without the Basics

46

Still Living Without the Basics

47

Still Living Without the Basics

48

Still Living Without the Basics

49

Still Living Without the Basics States Ranked by Total Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000) Total Percent of occupied Total occupied Percent of Percent change in total occupied housing units housing units occupied occupied housing units housing units lacking lacking housing units lacking complete State / Territory lacking complete complete lacking complete plumbing facilities, from complete plumbing plumbing plumbing 1990 to 2000 (base plumbing facilities facilities (1990) facilities (1990) year = 1990) facilities (2000) (2000) 85460 0.74 57974 0.56 47.41 California 65640 5.20 NA NA NA Puerto Rico 58418 0.83 50428 0.76 15.84 New York 54853 0.74 56844 0.94 -3.50 Texas 30134 0.48 22061 0.43 36.59 Florida 24450 0.51 26355 0.59 -7.23 Pennsylvania 23959 0.52 21572 0.51 11.07 Illinois 21088 1.11 18352 1.34 14.91 Arizona 19550 0.72 35788 1.56 -45.37 Virginia 19407 0.44 24394 0.60 -20.44 Ohio 19295 0.62 33192 1.32 -41.87 North Carolina 17117 0.57 22921 0.97 -25.32 Georgia 16971 0.45 14687 0.43 15.55 Michigan 16530 0.54 12914 0.46 28.00 New Jersey 15211 0.62 9096 0.40 67.23 Massachusetts 14947 0.94 33623 2.44 -55.55 Kentucky 14340 0.64 23840 1.29 -39.85 Tennessee 14003 6.32 13489 7.14 3.81 Alaska 12457 0.55 10128 0.54 23.00 Washington 11923 0.54 14263 0.73 -16.41 Missouri 11905 1.76 11898 2.19 0.06 New Mexico 11005 0.63 20819 1.38 -47.14 Alabama 10717 0.65 14318 0.95 -25.15 Louisiana 10648 0.51 11780 0.65 -9.61 Wisconsin 10599 0.45 11288 0.55 -6.10 Indiana 9581 0.51 9382 0.57 2.12 Minnesota 9521 0.62 16626 1.32 -42.73 South Carolina 9033 0.46 10206 0.58 -11.49 Maryland 9015 0.86 17625 1.93 -48.85 Mississippi 8327 0.80 13030 1.46 -36.09 Arkansas 7546 0.56 7145 0.59 5.61 Oklahoma 7451 1.01 15972 2.32 -53.35 West Virginia 7243 0.44 4592 0.36 57.73 Colorado 7025 0.53 6426 0.58 9.32 Oregon 6466 0.50 4383 0.36 47.52 Connecticut 4832 0.42 5333 0.50 -9.39 Iowa 4468 0.86 7477 1.61 -40.24 Maine 4057 0.39 3695 0.39 9.80 Kansas 3833 0.95 3365 0.94 13.91 Hawaii 3638 0.48 1893 0.41 92.18 Nevada 2906 0.41 2163 0.40 34.35 Utah 2776 0.77 2357 0.77 17.78 Montana 2720 0.58 2246 0.62 21.10 Idaho 2408 0.36 2253 0.37 6.88 Nebraska 2254 0.47 2363 0.57 -4.61 New Hampshire 2194 0.54 1670 0.44 31.38 Rhode Island 2112 0.85 1585 0.63 33.25 District of Columbia 1858 0.64 2315 0.89 -19.74 South Dakota 1481 0.62 1952 0.93 -24.13 Vermont 1124 0.44 1558 0.65 -27.86 North Dakota 1119 0.37 1160 0.47 -3.53 Delaware 1011 0.52 897 0.53 12.71 Wyoming

50

Percent change in total occupied housing units from 1990 to 2000 (base year = 1990) 10.80 NA 6.29 21.78 23.43 6.25 9.27 38.90 17.77 8.76 24.43 27.03 10.71 9.66 8.74 15.28 20.46 17.30 21.31 11.90 24.92 15.28 10.46 14.40 13.12 15.01 21.92 13.26 14.82 17.00 11.29 6.96 29.30 20.88 5.79 7.98 11.37 9.86 13.18 61.09 30.53 17.15 30.20 10.60 15.42 8.06 -0.52 12.05 14.23 6.76 20.70 14.67

Still Living Without the Basics States of Territories Ranked by Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000) Total Percent of Total occupied Percent change in occupied Percent of Percent change occupied housing units total occupied housing units occupied housing in total occupied housing units lacking housing units lacking lacking units lacking housing units State / Territory lacking complete complete plumbing complete complete from 1990 to complete plumbing facilities, from 1990 to plumbing plumbing facilities 2000 (base year plumbing facilities 2000 (base year = facilities (1990) = 1990) facilities (2000) (1990) 1990) (2000) Alaska Puerto Rico New Mexico Arizona West Virginia Hawaii Kentucky Maine Mississippi District of Columbia New York Arkansas Montana California Texas Virginia Louisiana Tennessee South Dakota Alabama Massachusetts South Carolina North Carolina Vermont Idaho Georgia Oklahoma Washington Missouri New Jersey Rhode Island Oregon Wyoming Illinois Pennsylvania Wisconsin Minnesota Connecticut Nevada Florida New Hampshire Maryland Indiana Michigan North Dakota Colorado Ohio Iowa Utah Kansas Delaware Nebraska

14003 65640 11905 21088 7451 3833 14947 4468 9015 2112 58418 8327 2776 85460 54853 19550 10717 14340 1858 11005 15211 9521 19295 1481 2720 17117 7546 12457 11923 16530 2194 7025 1011 23959 24450 10648 9581 6466 3638 30134 2254 9033 10599 16971 1124 7243 19407 4832 2906 4057 1119 2408

6.32 5.20 1.76 1.11 1.01 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.36

13489 NA 11898 18352 15972 3365 33623 7477 17625 1585 50428 13030 2357 57974 56844 35788 14318 23840 2315 20819 9096 16626 33192 1952 2246 22921 7145 10128 14263 12914 1670 6426 897 21572 26355 11780 9382 4383 1893 22061 2363 10206 11288 14687 1558 4592 24394 5333 2163 3695 1160 2253

7.14 NA 2.19 1.34 2.32 0.94 2.44 1.61 1.93 0.63 0.76 1.46 0.77 0.56 0.94 1.56 0.95 1.29 0.89 1.38 0.40 1.32 1.32 0.93 0.62 0.97 0.59 0.54 0.73 0.46 0.44 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.57 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.43 0.65 0.36 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.39 0.47 0.37

3.81 NA 0.06 14.91 -53.35 13.91 -55.55 -40.24 -48.85 33.25 15.84 -36.09 17.78 47.41 -3.50 -45.37 -25.15 -39.85 -19.74 -47.14 67.23 -42.73 -41.87 -24.13 21.10 -25.32 5.61 23.00 -16.41 28.00 31.38 9.32 12.71 11.07 -7.23 -9.61 2.12 47.52 92.18 36.59 -4.61 -11.49 -6.10 15.55 -27.86 57.73 -20.44 -9.39 34.35 9.80 -3.53 6.88

17.30 NA 24.92 38.90 6.96 13.18 15.28 11.37 14.82 -0.52 6.29 17.00 17.15 10.80 21.78 17.77 10.46 20.46 12.05 15.28 8.74 21.92 24.43 14.23 30.20 27.03 11.29 21.31 11.90 9.66 8.06 20.88 14.67 9.27 6.25 14.40 15.01 5.79 61.09 23.43 15.42 13.26 13.12 10.71 6.76 29.30 8.76 7.98 30.53 9.86 20.70 10.60

51

Still Living Without the Basics States Ranked by Total Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

State / Territory

Texas Arizona Alaska Virginia Kentucky North Carolina New Mexico Tennessee Pennsylvania Ohio California Alabama Georgia Missouri Mississippi West Virginia Puerto Rico Arkansas South Carolina New York Wisconsin Michigan Indiana Minnesota Washington Oklahoma Maine Louisiana Florida Illinois Iowa Colorado Oregon Maryland Montana Hawaii Kansas Idaho South Dakota New Hampshire Vermont Utah Nebraska Massachusetts North Dakota Wyoming New Jersey Nevada Connecticut Delaware Rhode Island

52

Total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (2000) 15169 13093 12462 12128 11672 10564 9095 8222 8112 7355 6785 6299 6234 6147 6109 5896 5673 5498 5476 5354 4879 4680 4602 4367 4066 3883 3786 3411 3137 2655 2508 2423 2256 2176 1873 1634 1589 1581 1312 1296 1215 1164 985 734 675 590 488 471 417 344 100

Percent of rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (2000) 1.16 6.20 16.89 1.66 1.71 0.85 5.73 1.04 0.77 0.79 1.01 0.83 0.74 0.94 1.15 1.55 8.47 1.12 0.93 0.61 0.77 0.50 0.71 0.82 1.05 0.87 1.26 0.78 0.49 0.47 0.57 0.97 0.82 0.82 1.18 4.55 0.55 1.03 0.98 0.69 0.83 1.43 0.49 0.37 0.61 0.92 0.30 0.76 0.27 0.59 0.29

Total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (1990) 26028 14007 11564 30003 30921 27743 10173 19438 14210 14480 8302 15812 15443 9717 14849 14925 NA 10328 12715 7750 7115 6137 7000 6022 5016 4741 6562 8335 5176 5331 3677 2369 3567 5308 1678 1253 2462 1741 1984 1746 1732 1092 1189 1150 1209 609 973 483 813 744 233

Percent of rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (1990)

Percent change in total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities, from 1990 to 2000 (base year = 1990)

2.23 8.65 20.17 4.38 4.84 2.26 7.60 2.78 1.08 1.49 1.12 2.74 1.85 1.65 3.18 3.55 NA 2.56 2.31 0.78 1.20 0.64 1.02 1.28 1.22 1.28 2.63 1.83 0.71 0.84 0.90 1.12 1.16 1.74 1.22 3.19 0.87 1.19 1.59 0.90 1.24 1.66 0.60 0.35 1.10 1.08 0.35 0.96 0.33 1.12 0.47

-41.72 -6.53 7.77 -59.58 -62.25 -61.92 -10.60 -57.70 -42.91 -49.21 -18.27 -60.16 -59.63 -36.74 -58.86 -60.50 NA -46.77 -56.93 -30.92 -31.43 -23.74 -34.26 -27.48 -18.94 -18.10 -42.30 -59.08 -39.39 -50.20 -31.79 2.28 -36.75 -59.01 11.62 30.41 -35.46 -9.19 -33.87 -25.77 -29.85 6.59 -17.16 -36.17 -44.17 -3.12 -49.85 -2.48 -48.71 -53.76 -57.08

Percent change in total rural occupied housing units from 1990 to 2000 (base year = 1990) 12.33 30.46 28.71 6.88 6.91 0.84 18.56 13.70 -20.16 -3.84 -9.58 31.44 1.36 10.67 13.65 -9.28 NA 21.30 7.45 -11.17 7.29 -3.41 -5.18 13.00 -6.05 21.23 20.77 -3.61 -12.31 -10.72 7.30 17.98 -10.64 -13.16 14.71 -8.62 3.23 4.74 7.23 -3.25 4.93 23.32 0.20 -40.43 -0.11 14.55 -42.05 22.74 -36.60 -12.39 -30.61

Still Living Without the Basics States Ranked by Percent of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

State / Territory

Alaska Puerto Rico Arizona New Mexico Hawaii Kentucky Virginia West Virginia Utah Maine Montana Texas Mississippi Arkansas Washington Tennessee Idaho California South Dakota Colorado Missouri South Carolina Wyoming Oklahoma North Carolina Alabama Vermont Minnesota Maryland Oregon Ohio Louisiana Pennsylvania Wisconsin Nevada Georgia Indiana New Hampshire North Dakota New York Delaware Iowa Kansas Michigan Florida Nebraska Illinois Massachusetts New Jersey Rhode Island Connecticut

Total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (2000) 12462 5673 13093 9095 1634 11672 12128 5896 1164 3786 1873 15169 6109 5498 4066 8222 1581 6785 1312 2423 6147 5476 590 3883 10564 6299 1215 4367 2176 2256 7355 3411 8112 4879 471 6234 4602 1296 675 5354 344 2508 1589 4680 3137 985 2655 734 488 100 417

Percent of rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (2000) 16.89 8.47 6.20 5.73 4.55 1.71 1.66 1.55 1.43 1.26 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.12 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.29 0.27

Total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (1990) 11564 NA 14007 10173 1253 30921 30003 14925 1092 6562 1678 26028 14849 10328 5016 19438 1741 8302 1984 2369 9717 12715 609 4741 27743 15812 1732 6022 5308 3567 14480 8335 14210 7115 483 15443 7000 1746 1209 7750 744 3677 2462 6137 5176 1189 5331 1150 973 233 813

Percent of rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities (1990) 20.17 NA 8.65 7.60 3.19 4.84 4.38 3.55 1.66 2.63 1.22 2.23 3.18 2.56 1.22 2.78 1.19 1.12 1.59 1.12 1.65 2.31 1.08 1.28 2.26 2.74 1.24 1.28 1.74 1.16 1.49 1.83 1.08 1.20 0.96 1.85 1.02 0.90 1.10 0.78 1.12 0.90 0.87 0.64 0.71 0.60 0.84 0.35 0.35 0.47 0.33

Percent change in total rural occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities, from 1990 to 2000 (base year = 1990) 7.77 NA -6.53 -10.60 30.41 -62.25 -59.58 -60.50 6.59 -42.30 11.62 -41.72 -58.86 -46.77 -18.94 -57.70 -9.19 -18.27 -33.87 2.28 -36.74 -56.93 -3.12 -18.10 -61.92 -60.16 -29.85 -27.48 -59.01 -36.75 -49.21 -59.08 -42.91 -31.43 -2.48 -59.63 -34.26 -25.77 -44.17 -30.92 -53.76 -31.79 -35.46 -23.74 -39.39 -17.16 -50.20 -36.17 -49.85 -57.08 -48.71

Percent change in total rural occupied housing units from 1990 to 2000 (base year = 1990) 28.71 NA 30.46 18.56 -8.62 6.91 6.88 -9.28 23.32 20.77 14.71 12.33 13.65 21.30 -6.05 13.70 4.74 -9.58 7.23 17.98 10.67 7.45 14.55 21.23 0.84 31.44 4.93 13.00 -13.16 -10.64 -3.84 -3.61 -20.16 7.29 22.74 1.36 -5.18 -3.25 -0.11 -11.17 -12.39 7.30 3.23 -3.41 -12.31 0.20 -10.72 -40.43 -42.05 -30.61 -36.60

53

Still Living Without the Basics

State-by-State Analysis at County Level

55

Still Living Without the Basics

Explanation of Terms Abbreviation

Full Term

HU

Housing Unit

OHU

Occupied Housing Units

OHULP

Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

%OHULP

Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

Explanation

A housing unit is defined by the U.S. Census 2000 as: “A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. For vacant units, the criteria of separateness and direct access are applied to the intended occupants whenever possible.” This is the same definition which applies to all housing units shown in the tables in this report. This denotes all the housing units that were occupied at the time of the census (both for 1990 and 2000 censuses). This denotes all the occupied housing units, at the time of the census, that lacked complete plumbing facilities. “Lacking complete plumbing facilities” indicates lack of any of the three following facilities inside the housing unit (this the same for the 1990 and 2000 censuses): 1) Hot and cold piped water 2) Bathtub or shower 3) Flush toilet This is the percentage of occupied housing units (i.e. as a percentage of the total occupied housing units) that lack complete plumbing facilities. This is calculated as:

( ROHU

Rural Occupied Housing Units

ROHULP

Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

%ROHULP

Percentage of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

OHULP OHU

)

X 100 = % OHULP

This denotes all the rural occupied housing units. The U.S. Census 2000 defines all territories, population and housing units to be rural which are not classified as “urban”. (For a detailed definition of “urban”, please look at the glossary.) This denotes all the rural occupied housing units, at the time of the census, that lacked complete plumbing facilities. This is the percentage of rural occupied housing units (i.e. as a percentage of the total rural occupied housing units) that lack complete plumbing facilities. This is calculated as:

(

)

ROHULP ROHU

X 100 = % ROHULP

57

Still Living Without the Basics

Abbreviation

Full Term

Explanation

OHULP with Householder below Poverty Level in 1999

Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, with Householder having Income in 1999 below the Poverty Level

This denotes all the occupied housing units that lack complete plumbing facilities, with householder having an income in 1999 below the poverty level. (For a detailed description of “poverty level” please see the definition for “poverty” in the glossary.)

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, with Householder having Income in 1999 below the Poverty Level

This is the percentage of occupied housing units that lack complete plumbing facilities, and having a householder with an income in 1999 below the poverty level. The percentage is calculated as: OHULP below poverty level in 1999

(

)

OHU below poverty level in 1999

X 100 =

%OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, with Householder having Income in 1999 below the Poverty Level

This denotes all the rural occupied housing units that lack complete plumbing facilities, and having a householder with an income in 1999 below the poverty level.

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percentage of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, with Householder having Income in 1999 below the Poverty Level

This is the percentage of rural occupied housing units that lack complete plumbing facilities, and having a householder with an income in 1999 below the poverty level. The percentage is calculated as:

Percentage of the Population above 65 years living in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

This denotes the percentage of the population that is above 65 years and is living in occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities. This is calculated as:

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Total population in OHULP

58

Total Population in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

ROHULP below poverty level in 1999 ROHU below poverty level in 1999

(

)

Population above 65 years in OHULP Population above 65 years in OHU

(

X 100 =

% ROHULP below poverty level in 1999

)

X 100 = % Population above 65 year

This denotes the total number of people living in occupied housing units that lack complete plumbing facilities.

Still Living Without the Basics

ALABAMA (AL)

Ranking 2000 20

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 11005

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.63

Alabama (AL)

County Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler

Total OHU 16003 55336 10409 7421 19265 3986 8398

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 82 264 68 88 103 27 65

OHULP 1990 20819

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.38

Rural OHULP 2000 6299

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP population Percent of OHULP (as % of above 65 Rural (as % of years in OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.51 0.48 0.65 1.19 0.53 0.68 0.77

0.59 0.72 0.64 1.14 0.52 0.95 0.97

0.76 0.24 0.70 1.80 0.83 1.07 1.61

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.83

Rural OHULP 1990 15812

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 2.74

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.74 1.33 1.47 2.30 0.92 1.33 2.39

2.71 2.15 1.67 2.48 1.08 2.01 3.50

164 634 134 178 273 65 206

59

Still Living Without the Basics Alabama (AL)

County Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison Marengo Marion Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens Pike Randolph Russell St. Clair

60

Total OHU 45307 14522 9719 15287 6363 10578 5765 5590 17421 22461 5792 4682 15640 5577 30706 18878 17841 25113 22737 14297 41615 7493 12259 10477 3931 6415 6525 35834 21615 263265 6468 36088 13538 45702 24688 4909 8950 109955 8767 12697 32547 150179 9383 86068 43602 4333 8086 11933 8642 19741 24143

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 252 118 49 88 117 143 80 50 139 93 60 19 110 31 147 92 151 247 99 106 117 44 48 54 137 193 85 243 164 1132 28 177 162 257 141 118 187 366 190 101 126 915 134 520 197 96 104 55 152 144 154

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.56 0.81 0.50 0.58 1.84 1.35 1.39 0.89 0.80 0.41 1.04 0.41 0.70 0.56 0.48 0.49 0.85 0.98 0.44 0.74 0.28 0.59 0.39 0.52 3.49 3.01 1.30 0.68 0.76 0.43 0.43 0.49 1.20 0.56 0.57 2.40 2.09 0.33 2.17 0.80 0.39 0.61 1.43 0.60 0.45 2.22 1.29 0.46 1.76 0.73 0.64

0.36 1.57 0.50 0.42 1.84 1.37 1.39 0.89 1.21 0.36 1.04 0.41 0.87 0.56 0.55 0.57 1.34 1.08 0.36 0.85 0.34 0.65 0.45 0.50 3.49 3.31 1.30 0.73 0.74 0.33 0.43 0.57 1.08 0.89 0.49 2.40 2.16 0.47 2.72 0.80 0.51 0.60 1.73 0.87 0.24 2.22 1.29 0.48 1.60 1.31 0.66

0.47 0.63 0.74 0.57 2.47 0.93 1.24 1.60 0.71 0.39 1.56 0.47 0.94 1.29 0.69 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.93 1.27 0.35 1.07 0.30 0.81 4.56 4.70 0.88 0.76 0.95 0.36 0.50 0.59 1.50 0.82 0.47 2.16 1.83 0.49 1.11 0.68 0.23 0.65 0.96 0.48 0.12 3.71 1.39 0.72 1.68 0.99 0.47

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.09 1.37 0.00 1.24 2.98 2.53 4.46 2.46 1.11 0.75 2.53 1.08 1.02 1.24 1.15 0.65 1.39 2.35 1.98 1.63 0.49 2.12 0.70 0.88 6.21 6.12 3.69 1.59 2.12 0.95 1.68 1.06 2.06 1.08 1.62 3.98 4.03 1.22 2.72 1.04 0.85 1.38 2.85 1.65 1.50 4.70 3.15 1.09 5.31 1.50 2.60

0.73 2.92 0.00 0.62 2.98 3.53 4.46 2.46 1.39 0.76 2.53 1.08 1.51 1.24 1.56 0.97 2.33 2.43 1.55 2.07 0.53 2.76 0.98 0.58 6.21 6.96 3.69 2.52 2.38 1.00 1.68 1.61 1.61 2.21 2.08 3.98 3.69 1.91 3.17 1.05 1.34 0.77 3.35 5.39 0.95 4.70 3.15 1.13 4.94 3.34 3.04

572 312 97 207 276 242 175 91 281 196 142 27 246 49 361 256 340 490 266 235 242 85 196 74 346 415 232 530 272 2622 47 456 313 562 266 267 471 708 512 192 193 2468 376 1167 520 168 226 124 343 339 323

Still Living Without the Basics Alabama (AL)

County Shelby Sumter Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston

Total OHU 54631 5708 30674 16656 64517 28364 6705 4776 10107

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 225 129 275 134 284 150 149 179 51

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.41 2.26 0.90 0.80 0.44 0.53 2.22 3.75 0.50

0.48 2.26 1.17 0.74 0.51 0.54 2.22 3.75 0.48

0.44 1.49 1.25 1.07 0.55 0.44 2.42 3.66 0.42

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.35 3.51 2.82 1.75 0.69 1.38 6.06 6.65 1.45

0.35 3.51 3.71 1.65 0.60 1.49 6.06 6.65 1.14

500 232 577 239 653 349 298 460 84

61

Still Living Without the Basics

ALASKA (AK)

Ranking 2000 1

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 14003

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 6.32

OHULP 1990 13489

Alaska (AK)

Borough/ Census Area Aleutians East Borough Aleutians West Census Area Anchorage Municipality

Percent of OHULP 1990 7.14

Rural OHULP 2000 12462

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of OHULP below Rural population OHULP above 65 poverty (as % of years in level in 1999 Rural OHU) OHULP

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

526

4

0.76

0.76

NA

1270

17

1.34

1.96

NA

Total OHU

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 16.89

Rural OHULP 1990 11564

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 20.17

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.85

3.85

NA

6.25

7.41

42

94822

472

0.50

3.55

0.39

1.33

7.48

1080

Bethel Census Area

4226

2091

49.48

68.63

61.47

70.16

79.94

8853

Bristol Bay Borough Denali Borough Dillingham Census Area Fairbanks North Star Borough

490 785

8 193

1.63 24.59

1.63 24.59

NA 15.25

13.51 36.21

13.51 36.21

14 374

1529

285

18.64

18.64

24.72

35.09

35.09

937

29777

2092

7.03

17.54

3.63

15.38

45.21

3551

991

157

15.84

15.84

4.71

27.17

27.17

334

Haines Borough

62

Still Living Without the Basics Alaska (AK)

Borough/ Census Area Juneau City and Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of OHULP below Rural population OHULP above 65 poverty (as % of years in level in 1999 Rural OHU) OHULP

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

11543

133

1.15

2.09

0.00

18438

1336

7.25

8.54

5399

91

1.69

4424

81

Total OHU

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.94

0.00

236

6.17

15.42

18.67

2598

2.38

0.83

2.15

0.00

164

1.83

4.48

1.44

1.98

5.95

124

13.95

13.95

12.50

28.45

28.45

155

Kodiak Island Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough

588

82

20556

1708

8.31

12.30

4.33

20.41

26.85

3746

Nome Census Area

2693

883

32.79

49.11

37.20

61.99

73.08

3189

North Slope Borough

2109

598

28.35

54.93

43.60

53.92

81.48

2070

1780

399

22.42

38.37

20.56

45.29

55.61

1578

2262

140

6.19

6.19

10.20

16.85

16.85

258

Northwest Arctic Borough Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan Census Area Sitka City and Borough Skagway-HoonahAngoon Census Area

3278

46

1.40

1.43

NA

0.00

0.00

61

1369

144

10.52

10.52

8.23

30.91

30.91

261

Southeast Fairbanks Census Area

2098

461

21.97

21.97

10.67

42.17

42.17

1176

Valdez-Cordova Census Area

3884

472

12.15

12.15

13.33

36.50

36.50

881

Wade Hampton Census Area

1602

831

51.87

51.87

48.18

69.29

69.29

3757

Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area

2587

124

4.79

7.07

2.66

15.65

16.37

228

Yakutat City and Borough

265

16

6.04

6.04

NA

2.94

2.94

38

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area

2309

1139

49.33

49.33

38.17

64.11

64.11

2850

Aleutians East Borough

526

4

0.76

0.76

NA

3.85

3.85

NA

Aleutians West Census Area

1270

17

1.34

1.96

NA

6.25

7.41

42

Anchorage Municipality Bethel Census Area Bristol Bay Borough Denali Borough Dillingham Census Area

94822

472

0.50

3.55

0.39

1.33

7.48

1080

4226 490

2091 8

49.48 1.63

68.63 1.63

61.47 NA

70.16 13.51

79.94 13.51

8853 14

785

193

24.59

24.59

15.25

36.21

36.21

374

18.64

18.64

24.72

35.09

35.09

937

1529

285

Fairbanks North Star Borough

29777

2092

7.03

17.54

3.63

15.38

45.21

3551

Haines Borough

991

157

15.84

15.84

4.71

27.17

27.17

334

Juneau City and Borough

11543

133

1.15

2.09

0.00

1.94

0.00

236

Kenai Peninsula Borough

18438

1336

7.25

8.54

6.17

15.42

18.67

2598

63

Still Living Without the Basics Alaska (AK)

Borough/ Census Area

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of OHULP below Rural population OHULP above 65 poverty (as % of years in level in 1999 Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

5399

91

1.69

2.38

0.83

2.15

0.00

164

Kodiak Island Borough

4424

81

1.83

4.48

1.44

1.98

5.95

124

588

82

13.95

13.95

12.50

28.45

28.45

155

Lake and Peninsula Borough

64

Still Living Without the Basics

ARIZONA (AZ)

Ranking 2000 4

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 21088

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 1.11

Arizona (AZ)

County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa

OHULP 1990 18352

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.34

Rural OHULP 2000 13093

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 6.20

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

14007

8.65

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

43.95 2.58 16.90 4.50 4.73 0.58 3.32 1.44

50.80 5.12 38.52 6.73 7.23 0.88 4.87 6.46

16908 1058 7251 668 486 72 292 15889

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 19971 43893 40448 20140 10116 3117 8362 1132886

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 5155 476 2196 270 191 39 140 4992

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 25.81 1.08 5.43 1.34 1.89 1.25 1.67 0.44

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 33.54 1.89 13.57 1.54 2.97 1.97 2.08 1.06

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 34.14 1.23 11.32 0.60 0.53 0.83 1.17 0.22

65

Still Living Without the Basics Arizona (AZ)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma

62809 30043 332350 61364 11809 70171 53848

66

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 492 3427 1891 692 119 410 598

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.78 11.41 0.57 1.13 1.01 0.58 1.11

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1.92 19.07 2.48 2.16 1.31 1.04 1.85

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.58 13.81 0.38 0.37 0.28 0.51 0.71

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.86 26.62 1.69 3.80 1.92 1.14 2.48

4.49 37.03 12.83 7.78 1.62 2.50 7.47

911 11019 4994 1828 398 729 1735

Still Living Without the Basics

ARKANSAS (AR)

Ranking 2000 12

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 8327

Arkansas (AR)

County

Total OHU

Arkansas Ashley Baxter Benton Boone Bradley Calhoun Carroll Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Columbia Conway Craighead Crawford

8457 9384 17052 58212 13851 4834 2317 10189 5205 8912 7417 10190 3273 9981 7967 32301 19702

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.80

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 84 76 126 317 136 58 16 160 74 95 32 45 34 116 55 110 208

OHULP 1990 13030

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.46

Rural OHULP 2000 5498

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population OHULP Rural OHULP above 65 years in (as % of (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.99 0.81 0.74 0.54 0.98 1.20 0.69 1.57 1.42 1.07 0.43 0.44 1.04 1.16 0.69 0.34 1.06

1.19 1.21 0.82 0.76 1.30 1.41 0.69 1.85 2.45 1.55 0.40 0.50 1.04 1.84 0.74 0.32 1.65

0.58 1.58 0.37 0.43 1.10 1.22 NA 1.55 0.53 0.85 0.24 0.31 0.72 0.72 0.76 0.25 0.41

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.12

Rural OHULP 1990 10328

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 2.56

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.61 1.64 2.38 0.92 1.87 1.00 3.53 4.73 3.09 3.25 1.72 0.41 3.37 2.96 2.35 0.67 1.90

5.20 2.12 3.04 1.52 2.70 1.50 3.53 6.06 5.21 5.49 2.20 0.57 3.37 5.14 3.41 0.00 2.95

176 211 253 716 266 139 21 334 251 155 63 81 67 330 164 196 465

67

Still Living Without the Basics Arkansas (AR)

County Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin Fulton Garland Grant Greene Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Logan Lonoke Madison Marion Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Prairie Pulaski Randolph St. Francis Saline Scott Searcy Sebastian Sevier Sharp Stone

68

Total OHU 18471 7391 3519 5922 7337 31882 6882 4810 37813 6241 14750 8959 12004 5471 13467 5440 6971 30555 8738 3434 7108 4182 4265 5465 8693 19262 5463 6776 15637 19349 4105 3785 3893 3500 11613 3989 9711 4504 10026 8047 20701 3894 147942 7265 10043 31778 4323 3523 45300 5708 7211 4768

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 174 54 53 58 54 207 62 38 171 38 53 77 96 37 114 87 32 257 106 56 43 67 32 85 81 119 220 130 94 137 50 41 80 247 123 33 115 30 53 92 161 26 699 80 109 192 35 106 199 58 70 127

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.94 0.73 1.51 0.98 0.74 0.65 0.90 0.79 0.45 0.61 0.36 0.86 0.80 0.68 0.85 1.60 0.46 0.84 1.21 1.63 0.60 1.60 0.75 1.56 0.93 0.62 4.03 1.92 0.60 0.71 1.22 1.08 2.05 7.06 1.06 0.83 1.18 0.67 0.53 1.14 0.78 0.67 0.47 1.10 1.09 0.60 0.81 3.01 0.44 1.02 0.97 2.66

1.47 0.56 1.88 1.42 1.37 1.08 1.08 0.83 0.46 0.35 0.57 1.10 0.81 0.94 1.02 1.60 0.49 0.78 1.39 1.63 0.47 1.77 0.75 1.45 1.33 0.73 4.03 1.92 0.46 0.83 1.32 1.08 2.29 7.06 0.99 0.83 1.47 0.67 0.71 1.50 1.10 0.67 0.40 1.64 0.81 0.66 0.74 3.01 0.45 1.52 1.20 2.66

1.53 1.02 0.53 1.21 1.09 0.35 0.43 0.49 0.47 1.49 NA 0.72 0.40 0.00 1.50 1.38 NA 0.93 0.99 3.56 0.35 2.01 0.53 1.56 0.94 1.07 3.79 1.25 0.93 1.08 1.73 0.85 3.09 6.82 1.57 NA 1.59 0.45 0.49 1.41 0.30 0.65 0.38 1.67 0.66 0.75 NA 1.43 0.34 1.30 0.70 2.68

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.84 1.06 3.54 1.68 1.88 2.47 2.58 0.88 1.26 0.29 1.02 2.17 3.33 1.11 2.30 4.16 1.19 1.67 1.88 2.91 1.08 0.91 2.07 2.10 1.48 2.43 6.93 6.11 0.75 1.12 3.31 4.04 5.07 12.40 2.00 4.26 2.42 2.46 1.25 2.42 1.98 1.02 1.25 3.95 2.36 2.35 2.53 5.31 0.46 2.99 2.63 6.09

3.75 1.94 2.51 3.80 3.55 6.07 3.39 1.02 1.16 0.38 1.52 4.02 3.80 1.35 3.27 4.16 0.48 1.18 1.97 2.91 1.69 0.88 2.07 2.10 2.35 4.06 6.93 6.11 0.64 1.47 3.51 4.04 6.72 12.40 1.58 4.26 3.62 2.46 1.64 2.91 2.24 1.02 1.54 6.67 2.50 1.74 1.79 5.31 1.41 5.65 2.97 6.09

458 127 178 129 187 480 126 68 323 120 76 192 207 104 249 140 73 608 266 150 70 193 53 184 163 360 424 269 179 293 119 87 170 509 333 59 182 47 95 148 346 43 1570 149 253 414 77 198 447 92 123 203

Still Living Without the Basics Arkansas (AR)

County

Total OHU

Union Van Buren Washington White Woodruff Yell

17989 6825 60151 25148 3531 7922

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 172 103 448 191 32 81

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.96 1.51 0.74 0.76 0.91 1.02

0.94 1.51 1.61 1.20 0.91 1.26

0.82 0.90 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.90

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.18 3.95 2.06 2.01 2.90 2.26

3.19 3.95 5.36 3.32 2.90 2.91

485 238 996 404 59 244

69

Still Living Without the Basics

CALIFORNIA (CA)

Ranking 2000 14

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 85460

California (CA)

County

Total OHU

Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte

523366 483 12759 79566 16469 6097 344129 9170

70

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.74

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 3293 17 52 437 128 75 1311 74

OHULP 1990 57974

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.56

Rural OHULP 2000 6785

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.63 3.52 0.41 0.55 0.78 1.23 0.38 0.81

0.42 3.52 0.50 1.00 0.78 1.08 0.65 0.88

0.53 NA 0.19 0.37 0.42 0.61 0.28 1.42

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.01

Rural OHULP 1990 8302

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 1.12

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.52 3.66 0.54 1.41 2.84 2.26 1.39 2.28

0.00 3.66 0.83 3.87 2.97 1.81 4.89 2.67

9978 23 97 973 312 290 4054 243

Still Living Without the Basics California (CA)

County El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

58939 252940 9172 51238 39384 7703 208652 34418 23974 9625 3133774 36155 100650 6613 33266 63815 3784 5137 121236 45402 36894 935287 93382 9000 506218 453602 15885 528594 994677 329700 181629 92739

218 2294 33 575 439 79 1507 193 215 43 31288 278 523 58 653 800 40 17 743 170 303 5060 353 25 2516 1991 120 3371 6037 6803 1173 340

0.37 0.91 0.36 1.12 1.11 1.03 0.72 0.56 0.90 0.45 1.00 0.77 0.52 0.88 1.96 1.25 1.06 0.33 0.61 0.37 0.82 0.54 0.38 0.28 0.50 0.44 0.76 0.64 0.61 2.06 0.65 0.37

0.37 1.06 0.38 2.54 2.52 1.27 0.90 0.95 0.83 0.71 1.09 0.86 1.23 0.88 3.45 0.97 1.27 0.35 0.58 0.43 1.57 0.00 0.63 0.32 0.82 0.46 0.63 1.60 0.83 0.00 0.94 0.33

0.17 0.58 0.46 0.72 1.05 1.29 0.48 0.75 0.13 0.48 0.65 0.72 0.37 1.05 0.64 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.31 0.08 0.31 0.23 0.22 0.35 0.25 0.51 0.37 0.37 2.11 0.41 0.24

0.97 1.97 1.68 2.32 1.62 3.28 1.66 0.74 1.99 0.92 2.28 1.48 0.81 0.86 4.01 3.13 1.95 2.05 1.41 0.77 2.36 1.44 0.32 1.44 1.24 1.15 2.66 1.38 1.60 6.28 1.58 0.57

0.67 2.36 1.15 6.72 6.13 3.30 1.95 0.00 2.07 1.57 3.76 1.16 2.04 0.86 7.22 1.69 1.65 4.57 0.17 0.00 4.79 0.00 0.79 1.73 3.51 0.00 2.92 4.22 2.98 0.00 2.23 0.85

521 9415 84 1327 1095 184 5373 591 604 55 105129 1016 1199 108 1388 3515 49 35 3043 502 671 20916 1012 36 8889 5816 458 11585 17369 12007 3952 700

254103 136622 565863 91139 63426 1520 18556 130403 172403 145146 27033 21013 5587 110385 21004 243234 59375 20535

1279 815 2867 924 274 31 209 661 840 827 157 90 101 1065 96 1153 241 185

0.50 0.60 0.51 1.01 0.43 2.04 1.13 0.51 0.49 0.57 0.58 0.43 1.81 0.96 0.46 0.47 0.41 0.90

1.28 1.09 1.10 1.85 0.79 2.04 1.48 0.92 0.67 0.54 0.59 0.65 1.81 1.12 0.58 0.77 0.37 0.75

0.32 0.41 0.44 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.62 0.47 0.22 0.47 NA 0.12 1.16 0.85 0.17 0.27 0.39 0.83

1.42 1.49 1.17 2.99 1.18 11.92 2.41 1.09 1.05 1.22 1.29 1.59 3.35 1.99 1.60 1.47 0.60 1.80

0.00 2.25 0.00 6.37 3.60 11.92 3.56 1.80 3.21 0.90 2.04 2.12 3.35 2.26 2.36 3.46 0.00 2.40

4568 2857 9953 2468 704 42 392 1946 2049 2955 555 196 170 4230 177 4429 628 696

71

Still Living Without the Basics

COLORADO (CO)

Ranking 2000 46

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 7243

Colorado (CO)

County Adams Alamosa Arapahoe Archuleta Baca Bent Boulder Chaffee Cheyenne Clear Creek Conejos Costilla Crowley Custer Delta

72

Total OHU 128156 5467 190909 3980 1905 2003 114680 6584 880 4019 2980 1503 1358 1480 11058

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.44

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 425 26 582 90 14 21 410 54 0 60 34 93 1 94 110

OHULP 1990 4592

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.36

Rural OHULP 2000 2423

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.33 0.48 0.30 2.26 0.73 1.05 0.36 0.82 0.00 1.49 1.14 6.19 0.07 6.35 0.99

0.12 1.26 0.12 3.18 0.73 1.89 1.48 1.10 0.00 1.53 1.14 6.19 0.07 6.35 1.22

0.37 0.75 0.27 1.77 0.85 NA 0.05 0.00 0.00 NA 0.65 5.54 0.00 2.10 0.29

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.97

Rural OHULP 1990 2369

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 1.12

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.55 0.60 0.83 7.17 1.99 1.70 0.82 0.77 0.00 6.74 3.16 12.47 0.41 11.11 4.03

0.41 2.40 0.00 11.39 1.99 1.60 3.17 0.00 0.00 7.14 3.16 12.47 0.41 11.11 5.54

1486 43 1779 139 23 38 821 77 0 85 53 159 9 180 242

Still Living Without the Basics Colorado (CO)

County Denver Dolores Douglas Eagle Elbert El Paso Fremont Garfield Gilpin Grand Gunnison Hinsdale Huerfano Jackson Jefferson KIA Kit Carson Lake La Plata Larimer Las Animas Lincoln

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

239235 785 60924 15148 6770 192409 15232 16229 2043 5075 5649 359 3082 661 206067 665 2990 2977 17342 97164 6173 2058

1377 28 128 84 33 570 111 37 61 53 36 9 53 0 657 0 45 28 129 195 92 3

0.58 3.57 0.21 0.55 0.49 0.30 0.73 0.23 2.99 1.04 0.64 2.51 1.72 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.51 0.94 0.74 0.20 1.49 0.15

0.00 3.57 0.30 0.80 0.49 0.67 1.61 0.15 2.99 1.04 1.15 2.51 2.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.71 2.24 0.95 0.67 2.56 0.15

0.42 4.35 0.35 1.46 NA 0.23 0.53 0.29 NA 0.75 0.77 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.35 0.00 3.96 NA 0.77 0.29 1.47 NA

1.27 8.26 0.57 1.48 1.86 0.93 2.33 0.80 30.26 5.29 0.00 0.00 5.36 0.00 0.90 0.00 2.87 4.01 1.26 0.26 2.35 0.00

0.00 8.26 0.00 2.55 1.86 2.07 5.25 0.00 30.26 5.29 0.00 0.00 9.52 0.00 1.83 0.00 5.65 11.27 1.26 4.01 5.09 0.00

3320 64 391 163 110 1571 397 60 97 88 50 9 110 0 1343 0 125 31 279 419 218 NA

Logan Mesa Mineral

7551 45823 377

34 147 2

0.45 0.32 0.53

0.00 0.56 0.53

0.43 0.48 NA

0.93 0.67 5.13

0.00 0.95 5.13

84 229 NA

Moffat Montezuma Montrose Morgan Otero Ouray Park Phillips Pitkin Prowers Pueblo Rio Blanco Rio Grande Routt Saguache San Juan San Miguel Sedgwick Summit Teller Washington Weld Yuma

4983 9201 13043 9539 7920 1576 5894 1781 6807 5307 54579 2306 4701 7953 2300 269 3015 1165 9120 7993 1989 63247 3800

13 74 26 30 37 8 109 8 49 20 276 0 24 38 63 6 51 2 39 52 17 368 7

0.26 0.80 0.20 0.31 0.47 0.51 1.85 0.45 0.72 0.38 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.48 2.74 2.23 1.69 0.17 0.43 0.65 0.85 0.58 0.18

0.45 1.13 0.31 0.33 0.52 0.51 1.85 0.45 1.03 1.02 0.78 0.00 0.82 0.67 2.74 2.23 1.69 0.17 1.24 1.09 0.85 0.54 0.27

0.00 0.78 0.00 0.47 0.23 0.00 1.85 1.40 0.00 NA 0.50 0.00 0.60 0.00 2.24 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.60 0.26 NA

0.00 2.02 0.13 0.00 0.29 0.00 7.21 2.04 6.87 1.31 0.64 0.00 1.07 1.11 5.70 7.14 2.80 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.96 1.38 0.00

0.00 2.62 0.31 0.00 0.97 0.00 7.21 2.04 13.97 3.60 2.86 0.00 2.09 2.76 5.70 7.14 2.80 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.96 0.86 0.00

50 146 82 86 108 15 188 18 100 48 598 0 70 45 155 9 92 NA 70 107 39 1233 11

73

Still Living Without the Basics

CONNECTICUT (CT)

Ranking 2000 38

County Fairfield Hartford Litchfield Middlesex New Haven New London Tolland Windham

74

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 6466

Total OHU 324232 335098 71551 61341 319040 99835 49431 41142

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.50

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 1557 2012 208 166 1862 360 109 192

OHULP 1990 4383

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.36

Rural OHULP 2000 417

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.48 0.60 0.29 0.27 0.58 0.36 0.22 0.47

0.43 0.11 0.33 0.12 0.16 0.36 0.27 0.29

0.34 0.39 0.44 0.20 0.42 0.26 0.08 0.19

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.27

Rural OHULP 1990 813

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 0.33

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.28 1.97 1.62 0.75 1.67 1.19 0.56 1.04

2.83 0.00 2.28 0.00 5.33 0.00 1.40 0.61

4573 5440 392 351 4473 1030 186 566

Still Living Without the Basics

DELAWARE (DE)

Ranking 2000 51

County Kent New Castle Sussex

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 1119

Total OHU 47224 188935 62577

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.37

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 147 605 367

OHULP 1990 1160

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.47

Rural OHULP 2000 344

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of population Percent of Percent of OHULP Rural OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in OHULP OHU) Rural OHU) 0.31 0.32 0.59

0.60 0.19 0.71

0.36 0.29 0.49

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.59

Rural OHULP 1990 744

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 1.12

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.06 0.86 1.06

2.41 0.00 0.87

321 1395 814

75

Still Living Without the Basics

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DC)

Ranking 2000 10

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 2112

County District of Columbia

76

Total OHU 248338

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.85

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2112

OHULP 1990 1585

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.63

Rural OHULP 2000

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.85

0.00

0.55

0

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.00

0

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.73

0.00

5508

Rural OHULP 1990

Still Living Without the Basics

FLORIDA (FL)

Ranking 2000 40

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

30134

OHULP 1990

0.48

Percent of OHULP 1990

22061

Florida (FL)

Rural OHULP 2000

0.43

3137

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.49

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

5176

0.71

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.90 3.19 0.85 2.57 0.66 0.92 1.33 0.35

1.34 3.97 0.71 2.05 1.05 0.00 1.25 0.00

934 142 287 152 1367 7350 108 270

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Alachua Baker Bay Bradford Brevard Broward Calhoun Charlotte

87509 7043 59597 8497 198195 654445 4468 63864

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 387 45 154 77 590 2617 51 144

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

0.44 0.64 0.26 0.91 0.30 0.40 1.14 0.23

0.49 0.78 0.42 0.80 0.61 0.00 1.08 0.38

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.48 0.99 0.19 1.63 0.26 0.27 1.27 0.14

77

Still Living Without the Basics Florida (FL)

County

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Citrus Clay Collier Columbia DeSoto Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lake Lee Leon Levy

52634 50243 102973 20925 10746 5205 303747 111049 21294 4096 15867 5021 3852 4931 4161 8166 10850 55425 37471 391357 6921 49137 16620 4695 2142 88413 188599 96521 13867

132 130 545 55 42 47 1429 435 31 20 200 14 15 12 27 57 81 141 108 1924 54 108 132 29 12 279 743 336 98

0.25 0.26 0.53 0.26 0.39 0.90 0.47 0.39 0.15 0.49 1.26 0.28 0.39 0.24 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.25 0.29 0.49 0.78 0.22 0.79 0.62 0.56 0.32 0.39 0.35 0.71

0.30 0.14 0.77 0.08 0.54 0.85 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.70 1.41 0.28 0.36 0.38 0.63 0.58 1.05 0.29 0.25 0.52 0.83 0.51 0.71 0.62 0.56 0.37 0.52 0.47 0.71

0.22 0.25 0.24 0.28 0.55 0.00 0.49 0.44 0.05 NA 1.39 0.96 0.40 NA NA 0.20 0.27 0.19 0.15 0.34 1.52 0.15 0.63 1.75 NA 0.18 0.19 0.32 0.88

1.04 1.40 2.80 0.90 0.86 1.88 1.06 0.77 0.13 1.84 2.99 0.51 0.73 0.46 1.46 1.13 1.04 0.31 0.95 1.14 2.34 0.52 2.25 1.09 2.69 0.71 1.09 0.81 1.75

1.24 0.90 3.27 0.11 1.24 1.26 1.36 0.52 0.33 2.88 4.50 0.51 1.03 0.69 1.26 1.74 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.73 2.51 4.43 2.31 1.09 2.69 0.52 2.53 2.97 1.75

392 396 1480 95 103 89 3088 957 75 26 564 32 33 13 57 282 298 335 307 5468 70 262 217 111 34 660 2091 712 251

Liberty Madison Manatee

2222 6629 112460

14 113 284

0.63 1.70 0.25

0.63 1.18 0.23

0.00 3.51 0.10

0.46 2.66 0.75

0.46 1.24 0.00

46 298 704

Marion Martin Miami-Dade Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Okeechobee Orange Osceola Palm Beach Pasco Pinellas Polk Putnam St. Johns St. Lucie Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole Sumter

106755 55288 776774 35086 21980 66269 12593 336286 60977 474175 147566 414968 187233 27839 49614 76933 43793 149937 139572 20779

305 151 7948 279 101 235 101 1896 257 2140 345 1232 656 148 95 382 136 410 495 84

0.29 0.27 1.02 0.80 0.46 0.35 0.80 0.56 0.42 0.45 0.23 0.30 0.35 0.53 0.19 0.50 0.31 0.27 0.35 0.40

0.35 0.33 1.15 1.07 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.79 0.33 0.44 0.47 0.00 0.31 0.60 0.25 0.57 0.45 0.15 1.08 0.47

0.26 0.15 1.00 0.65 0.22 0.28 0.48 0.48 0.17 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.15 0.32 0.25 0.46 0.41 0.24 0.41 0.27

0.76 0.21 1.84 2.31 1.36 1.50 1.98 1.22 1.09 1.27 0.34 0.75 0.98 1.21 0.37 1.59 1.22 0.58 0.41 0.87

0.77 0.00 5.63 3.27 2.03 2.17 0.00 5.29 1.76 3.72 1.00 0.00 0.79 1.46 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.35

718 395 23598 551 288 595 211 5474 819 5514 836 2540 1867 380 249 973 297 912 1167 158

78

Still Living Without the Basics Florida (FL)

County Suwannee Taylor Union Volusia Wakulla Walton Washington

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 13460 7176 3367 184723 8450 16548 7931

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 102 80 12 580 65 106 81

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

0.76 1.11 0.36 0.31 0.77 0.64 1.02

0.77 0.65 0.24 0.33 0.77 0.51 0.99

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.53 1.84 0.00 0.24 NA 0.72 0.78

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.28 1.75 1.55 0.84 2.40 1.32 2.00

2.42 0.00 1.92 2.30 2.40 1.11 1.90

267 191 29 1605 194 159 189

79

Still Living Without the Basics

GEORGIA (GA)

Ranking 2000 26

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 17117

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.57

Georgia (GA)

County Appling Atkinson Bacon Baker Baldwin Banks

80

OHULP 1990 22921

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.97

Rural OHULP 2000 6234

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 6606 2717 3833 1514 14758 5364

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 24 35 5 13 89 43

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.36 1.29 0.13 0.86 0.60 0.80

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 0.52 1.29 0.18 0.86 1.05 0.85

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.50 0.99 0.00 1.45 0.39 1.33

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.74

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

15443

1.85

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.16 3.32 0.00 0.00 0.86 2.18

0.25 3.32 0.00 0.00 2.33 2.32

67 129 10 66 186 107

Still Living Without the Basics Georgia (GA)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Berrien Bibb Bleckley Brantley Brooks Bryan Bulloch Burke Butts Calhoun Camden Candler Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chatham Chattahoochee Chattooga Cherokee Clarke Clay Clayton Clinch Cobb Coffee Colquitt Columbia Cook

16354 27176 6673 6261 59667 4372 5436 6155 8089 20743 7934 6455 1962 14705 3375 31568 20425 3342 89865 2932 9577 49495 39706 1347 82243 2512 227487 13354 15495 31120 5882

109 97 37 4 319 48 29 75 33 81 111 75 24 91 33 138 16 30 510 27 38 203 175 23 306 27 763 89 109 132 58

0.67 0.36 0.55 0.06 0.53 1.10 0.53 1.22 0.41 0.39 1.40 1.16 1.22 0.62 0.98 0.44 0.08 0.90 0.57 0.92 0.40 0.41 0.44 1.71 0.37 1.07 0.34 0.67 0.70 0.42 0.99

0.39 0.35 0.85 0.09 0.18 1.77 0.43 1.34 0.68 0.47 1.45 1.03 1.22 0.74 1.00 0.47 0.00 0.31 0.21 1.28 0.67 0.73 0.48 1.71 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.59 0.45 0.51 0.77

0.86 0.62 NA NA 0.35 1.10 0.57 0.63 0.43 0.36 3.22 1.92 NA 1.14 1.35 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.32 0.65 0.42 NA NA 2.80 0.47 1.50 0.21 0.89 0.47

1.21 1.08 0.81 0.00 1.11 0.87 0.91 2.18 1.01 0.36 4.41 4.31 2.92 1.14 0.00 1.19 0.77 0.56 1.32 3.74 1.55 2.50 0.59 1.65 0.73 1.88 0.90 2.39 1.83 1.74 2.14

1.33 1.03 2.89 0.00 0.90 2.28 0.23 2.38 1.55 0.61 5.17 1.83 2.92 1.84 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00 1.01 5.29 2.79 5.84 1.90 1.65 0.00 2.47 0.00 2.33 2.13 1.72 2.27

268 260 114 22 832 148 59 203 88 263 225 218 47 215 69 323 83 119 1508 51 61 556 468 36 1141 70 1820 212 169 395 133

Coweta Crawford Crisp Dade Dawson Decatur DeKalb Dodge Dooly Dougherty Douglas Early Echols Effingham Elbert Emanuel Evans Fannin Fayette Floyd Forsyth

31442 4461 8337 5633 6069 10380 249339 7062 3909 35552 32822 4695 1264 13151 8004 8045 3778 8369 31524 34028 34565

191 27 72 82 0 66 1161 111 34 330 78 71 0 115 60 72 22 43 121 171 129

0.61 0.61 0.86 1.46 0.00 0.64 0.47 1.57 0.87 0.93 0.24 1.51 0.00 0.87 0.75 0.89 0.58 0.51 0.38 0.50 0.37

0.71 0.61 0.74 1.37 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.72 0.78 0.55 0.09 1.27 0.00 1.03 0.81 1.19 0.74 0.51 0.60 0.45 0.46

0.31 1.07 1.65 0.58 0.00 0.89 0.31 1.26 1.94 1.34 0.00 1.01 0.00 1.30 0.82 NA NA 0.55 NA 0.67 0.37

1.51 2.48 2.01 4.81 0.00 2.35 0.77 1.82 1.02 1.84 0.61 3.86 0.00 4.80 2.43 2.23 0.31 1.43 0.00 1.44 0.51

4.57 2.48 1.72 5.42 0.00 3.56 0.00 2.30 0.88 0.00 0.00 3.45 0.00 5.42 3.98 3.15 0.19 1.43 0.00 1.36 0.00

441 60 160 135 0 173 3282 261 99 1045 183 295 0 443 148 160 47 73 346 355 440

81

Still Living Without the Basics Georgia (GA)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Franklin Fulton Gilmer Glascock Glynn Gordon Grady Greene Gwinnett Habersham Hall Hancock Haralson Harris Hart Heard Henry Houston Irwin Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Jones Lamar Lanier Laurens Lee Liberty Lincoln Long Lowndes Lumpkin McDuffie McIntosh Macon Madison Marion Meriwether Miller Mitchell Monroe Montgomery Morgan Murray Muscogee Newton Oconee Oglethorpe

7888 321242 9071 1004 27208 16173 8797 5477 202317 13259 47381 3237 9826 8822 9106 4043 41373 40911 3644 15057 4175 4828 6339 3214 3130 8659 5712 2593 17083 8229 19383 3251 3574 32654 7537 7970 4202 4834 9800 2668 8248 2487 8063 7719 2919 5558 13286 69819 21997 9051 4849

82

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 24 1967 57 9 200 87 36 58 646 68 255 103 63 79 61 47 105 95 18 91 53 41 83 44 42 19 50 12 138 92 155 68 29 143 54 114 57 68 58 28 112 19 89 91 33 50 75 326 173 25 66

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.30 0.61 0.63 0.90 0.74 0.54 0.41 1.06 0.32 0.51 0.54 3.18 0.64 0.90 0.67 1.16 0.25 0.23 0.49 0.60 1.27 0.85 1.31 1.37 1.34 0.22 0.88 0.46 0.81 1.12 0.80 2.09 0.81 0.44 0.72 1.43 1.36 1.41 0.59 1.05 1.36 0.76 1.10 1.18 1.13 0.90 0.56 0.47 0.79 0.28 1.36

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 0.34 0.61 0.56 0.90 0.58 0.59 0.55 1.12 1.06 0.42 0.31 3.51 0.54 0.93 0.56 1.16 0.11 0.50 0.23 0.58 1.27 1.02 1.41 1.43 1.34 0.07 0.79 0.49 1.09 1.58 1.33 2.09 0.90 0.29 0.72 0.43 1.45 1.32 0.52 1.05 1.55 0.76 0.71 1.04 1.15 1.19 0.58 0.00 0.90 0.26 1.36

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.87 0.54 1.53 NA 0.38 0.64 0.41 1.28 0.28 0.53 0.59 4.27 0.51 1.44 0.00 1.52 0.50 0.17 0.98 1.38 1.30 0.00 2.05 0.72 1.81 0.69 2.10 NA 0.93 2.32 2.06 NA 5.17 0.26 0.72 0.65 1.29 1.37 1.18 1.67 0.50 1.12 1.29 1.71 0.92 1.83 0.89 0.45 1.35 0.89 1.71

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 1.54 2.12 0.00 1.07 0.34 0.99 2.95 0.86 1.17 1.33 4.48 1.21 3.30 0.50 3.19 1.41 0.33 1.46 1.00 2.64 0.62 2.47 2.56 2.36 0.97 2.53 1.13 1.35 3.07 3.04 5.63 0.75 0.80 0.56 3.50 4.13 1.77 1.11 2.27 3.52 1.85 1.67 4.98 1.80 1.98 0.16 0.76 1.05 1.75 3.52

0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.21 2.26 3.44 0.00 1.54 1.29 5.52 0.92 3.37 0.00 3.19 1.50 1.38 1.73 1.16 2.64 1.05 3.06 4.56 2.36 0.43 0.00 1.13 1.49 5.74 5.13 5.63 0.87 0.59 0.00 1.24 5.60 1.78 1.16 2.27 4.36 1.85 0.99 7.09 1.82 3.08 0.23 0.00 1.99 4.42 3.52

76 5317 122 23 396 184 66 164 2304 226 881 230 139 183 134 81 315 341 18 241 237 92 150 67 67 63 114 29 293 284 363 152 54 298 101 261 113 188 250 82 236 19 315 183 89 93 146 876 491 38 144

Still Living Without the Basics Georgia (GA)

County Paulding Peach Pickens Pierce Pike Polk Pulaski Putnam Quitman Rabun Randolph Richmond Rockdale Schley Screven Seminole Spalding Stephens Stewart Sumter Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Thomas Tift Toombs Towns Treutlen Troup Turner Twiggs Union Upson Walker Walton Ware Warren Washington Wayne Webster Wheeler White Whitfield Wilcox Wilkes Wilkinson Worth

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 28089 8436 8960 5958 4755 14012 3407 7402 1047 6279 2909 73920 24052 1435 5797 3573 21519 9951 2007 12025 2538 870 7057 3281 4140 4002 16309 13919 9877 3998 2531 21920 3435 3832 7159 10722 23605 21307 13475 2435 7435 9324 911 2011 7731 29385 2785 4314 3827 8106

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 65 55 37 7 56 104 66 66 9 63 43 415 88 9 43 48 201 33 72 90 50 24 80 25 38 82 93 64 79 2 11 190 46 80 54 94 163 173 51 29 173 80 15 21 22 103 52 64 42 96

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.23 0.65 0.41 0.12 1.18 0.74 1.94 0.89 0.86 1.00 1.48 0.56 0.37 0.63 0.74 1.34 0.93 0.33 3.59 0.75 1.97 2.76 1.13 0.76 0.92 2.05 0.57 0.46 0.80 0.05 0.43 0.87 1.34 2.09 0.75 0.88 0.69 0.81 0.38 1.19 2.33 0.86 1.65 1.04 0.28 0.35 1.87 1.48 1.10 1.18

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 0.37 0.74 0.37 0.15 1.18 0.82 0.68 0.67 0.75 1.00 1.62 0.99 0.69 0.63 0.92 1.23 0.59 0.43 3.59 0.67 1.97 2.76 0.80 0.76 0.74 2.69 0.59 0.26 0.69 0.05 0.76 0.72 1.42 2.09 0.75 0.90 1.11 0.68 0.42 1.19 2.75 0.88 1.65 1.04 0.28 0.30 1.87 1.90 1.10 0.60

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP 0.41 1.18 0.49 0.00 1.17 1.21 0.94 1.02 0.00 1.53 0.88 0.47 0.15 1.90 0.44 0.58 0.67 0.43 4.66 0.28 1.39 4.95 0.65 0.72 1.87 1.63 0.29 0.32 0.84 0.00 0.93 1.00 1.23 3.07 0.59 0.95 0.88 0.60 0.22 NA 2.91 1.62 2.56 NA 0.00 0.54 1.68 0.61 2.15 0.84

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.41 0.49 1.49 0.62 3.89 1.00 1.77 1.70 1.68 2.96 1.07 1.01 1.19 3.13 1.02 1.40 2.95 1.08 6.58 1.97 3.14 3.24 3.29 2.38 1.72 1.36 1.05 0.88 3.31 0.37 1.60 1.62 4.39 6.78 2.11 1.53 2.53 1.46 0.80 1.35 6.47 1.13 5.29 3.36 0.93 0.38 3.19 3.40 2.08 4.63

1.91 0.00 2.29 0.93 3.89 1.26 2.24 0.00 0.00 2.96 2.43 2.32 3.40 3.13 1.21 2.33 1.48 2.41 6.58 1.92 3.14 3.24 2.26 2.38 1.89 1.85 0.69 0.00 3.38 0.37 3.55 3.62 4.84 6.78 2.11 3.29 3.09 1.87 3.21 1.35 9.58 0.94 5.29 3.36 0.93 0.00 3.19 5.83 2.08 2.42

163 95 64 11 141 207 209 195 16 107 152 1080 265 16 61 163 455 57 139 264 92 27 250 47 60 249 247 241 179 NA 14 425 277 144 57 185 390 441 69 68 385 227 36 36 47 237 136 149 115 186

83

Still Living Without the Basics

HAWAII (HI)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

6

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

3833

County

Total OHU

Hawaii Honolulu Kalawao Kauai Maui

52985 286450 115 20183 43507

84

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

OHULP 1990

0.95

Percent of OHULP 1990

3365

Rural OHULP 2000

0.94

1634

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 4.55

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

1450 1760 0 178 445

2.74 0.61 0.00 0.88 1.02

5.53 2.67 0.00 1.86 3.98

0.97 0.47 NA 0.34 0.88

7.52 1.70 0.00 2.25 3.99

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1253

3.19

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

13.54 12.63 0.00 3.84 16.84

3069 5083 NA 546 1148

Still Living Without the Basics

IDAHO (ID)

Ranking 2000 25

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

2720

Idaho (ID)

County Ada Adams Bannock Bear Lake Benewah Bingham Blaine Boise

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Total OHU 113408 1421 27192 2259 3580 13317 7780 2616

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 465 17 81 22 99 47 12 48

0.58

OHULP 1990 2246

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.62

Rural OHULP 2000 1581

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.41 0.49 0.23 1.20 1.20 NA 0.30 0.91 NA 0.97 1.02 0.00 2.77 4.13 1.92 0.35 0.43 NA 0.15 0.08 0.00 1.83 1.83 NA

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.03

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 0.90 0.00 0.69 0.00 6.69 0.45 1.75 5.92

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1741

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 2.31 0.00 3.66 0.00 9.71 0.88 0.00 5.92

1.19

Total population in OHULP 1129 40 164 48 208 120 10 89

85

Still Living Without the Basics Idaho (ID)

County Bonner Bonneville Boundary Butte Camas Canyon Caribou Cassia Clark Clearwater Custer Elmore Franklin Fremont Gem Gooding Idaho Jefferson Jerome Kootenai Latah Lemhi Lewis Lincoln Madison Minidoka Nez Perce Oneida Owyhee Payette Power Shoshone Teton Twin Falls Valley Washington

86

Total OHU 14693 28753 3707 1089 396 45018 2560 7060 340 3456 1770 9092 3476 3885 5539 5046 6084 5901 6298 41308 13059 3275 1554 1447 7129 6973 15286 1430 3710 7371 2560 5906 2078 23853 3208 3762

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 454 123 91 3 4 163 14 43 1 34 23 30 15 44 23 12 88 35 35 155 88 16 2 5 22 56 40 6 28 60 7 36 20 130 12 11

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 3.09 3.92 1.21 0.43 0.61 0.10 2.45 3.46 1.59 0.28 0.28 NA 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.36 0.49 0.25 0.55 0.54 NA 0.61 0.67 1.50 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.98 1.44 NA 1.30 1.30 NA 0.33 1.23 1.86 0.43 0.13 0.00 1.13 1.23 NA 0.42 0.20 0.63 0.24 0.33 0.00 1.45 1.84 0.69 0.59 0.66 0.57 0.56 0.41 0.50 0.38 0.56 0.23 0.67 0.92 1.25 0.49 0.41 0.54 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.35 0.35 NA 0.31 0.17 0.00 0.80 0.90 0.89 0.26 0.69 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.75 0.68 NA 0.81 1.35 1.58 0.27 0.63 0.00 0.61 0.76 0.62 0.96 0.96 NA 0.55 0.67 0.75 0.37 0.37 NA 0.29 0.24 NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 8.52 1.46 7.85 0.00 5.00 0.77 2.29 2.00 0.00 1.16 1.56 0.34 0.00 5.80 0.65 0.00 2.03 1.93 1.24 0.59 0.86 1.20 0.00 1.76 0.00 1.68 0.68 0.00 2.57 0.00 0.52 1.48 1.44 0.85 0.97 0.00

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 11.23 2.24 13.11 0.00 5.00 1.16 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.75 1.56 1.01 0.00 5.67 1.87 0.00 2.55 1.67 0.00 1.01 3.50 2.56 0.00 1.76 0.00 2.48 4.80 0.00 2.18 0.00 1.47 2.08 1.44 1.39 0.97 0.00

Total population in OHULP 982 351 158 NA 13 403 22 174 NA 86 39 81 30 155 66 21 149 145 111 362 158 32 NA 32 53 164 64 NA 155 146 22 52 22 312 36 20

Still Living Without the Basics

ILLINOIS (IL)

Ranking 2000 34

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Adams Alexander Bond Boone Brown Bureau Calhoun Carroll Cass

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

23959

Illinois (IL)

County

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 26860 3808 6155 14597 2108 14182 2046 6794 5347

0.52

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 107 57 35 32 30 19 39 24 22

OHULP 1990 21572

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.51

Rural OHULP 2000 2655

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.40 1.50 0.57 0.22 1.42 0.13 1.91 0.35 0.41

0.53 1.52 0.68 0.35 2.61 0.15 1.91 0.46 0.46

0.44 1.32 0.50 0.00 1.22 0.51 1.74 0.64 0.71

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.47

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

5331

0.84

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.22 1.25 1.09 0.91 2.83 0.40 8.56 0.00 0.00

1.71 0.66 0.00 0.00 6.82 0.68 8.56 0.00 0.00

181 147 100 70 44 64 63 72 39

87

Still Living Without the Basics Illinois (IL)

County Champaign Christian Clark Clay Clinton Coles Cook Crawford Cumberland DeKalb De Witt Douglas DuPage Edgar Edwards Effingham Fayette Ford Franklin Fulton Gallatin Greene Grundy Hamilton Hancock Hardin Henderson Henry Iroquois Jackson Jasper Jefferson Jersey Jo Daviess Johnson Kane Kankakee Kendall Knox Lake La Salle Lawrence Lee Livingston Logan McDonough McHenry McLean Macon Macoupin Madison Marion

88

Total OHU 70597 13921 6971 5839 12754 21043 1974181 7842 4368 31674 6770 7574 325601 7874 2905 13001 8146 5639 16408 14877 2726 5757 14293 3462 8069 1987 3365 20056 12220 24215 3930 15374 8096 9218 4183 133901 38182 18798 22056 216297 43417 6309 13253 14374 11113 12360 89403 56746 46561 19253 101953 16619

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 214 64 45 24 20 90 14546 14 35 106 22 24 968 60 6 89 43 16 116 88 17 20 34 20 33 42 18 44 35 134 13 107 42 23 47 704 147 47 60 775 134 41 14 39 27 66 183 106 148 65 376 82

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.30 0.46 0.65 0.41 0.16 0.43 0.74 0.18 0.80 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.76 0.21 0.68 0.53 0.28 0.71 0.59 0.62 0.35 0.24 0.58 0.41 2.11 0.53 0.22 0.29 0.55 0.33 0.70 0.52 0.25 1.12 0.53 0.38 0.25 0.27 0.36 0.31 0.65 0.11 0.27 0.24 0.53 0.20 0.19 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.49

0.54 0.23 0.82 0.63 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.29 0.80 0.14 0.41 0.37 0.00 0.77 0.21 0.95 0.69 0.69 0.89 0.53 0.62 0.33 0.21 0.90 0.58 2.11 0.45 0.22 0.28 0.59 0.51 0.94 0.42 0.30 1.13 0.25 0.59 0.00 0.58 0.08 0.30 0.93 0.13 0.54 0.28 0.75 0.24 0.18 0.37 0.55 0.29 0.87

0.18 0.74 1.31 0.32 0.23 0.55 0.46 0.56 1.02 0.22 0.40 0.27 0.28 1.53 NA 0.86 0.53 0.84 0.67 0.35 NA NA 0.44 1.02 0.62 2.80 0.54 0.28 0.27 0.36 1.12 1.63 0.35 0.65 1.36 0.31 0.50 0.72 0.30 0.25 0.29 0.68 NA 0.35 NA NA 0.25 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.43 0.67

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.42 0.28 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.29 1.87 0.81 4.04 0.38 0.35 0.55 0.44 1.09 0.70 1.74 1.93 1.19 1.12 1.20 0.70 0.26 0.24 2.51 2.22 3.67 2.44 0.00 0.49 0.98 3.52 2.39 1.79 0.28 2.95 1.31 1.14 0.00 0.43 1.36 0.50 1.05 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.79 1.61 0.26 0.72 0.52 0.69 0.70

0.00 0.83 0.00 2.21 0.00 1.51 0.00 1.41 4.04 0.29 1.02 0.78 0.00 2.63 0.70 2.26 2.22 3.13 1.43 1.54 0.70 0.46 0.80 4.90 3.11 3.67 2.45 0.00 0.83 2.48 6.10 4.22 1.63 0.41 2.97 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.66 2.17 1.03 0.56 0.86 0.00 0.00 1.66 4.59 1.62 1.98 0.99 1.73 2.16

457 132 83 50 50 146 44315 29 57 461 43 35 2990 98 13 174 55 32 206 159 21 37 70 30 51 116 34 80 96 224 18 202 102 36 117 2383 301 159 105 3054 364 121 27 74 66 357 427 263 295 151 1008 157

Still Living Without the Basics Illinois (IL)

County

Total OHU

Marshall Mason Massac Menard Mercer Monroe Montgomery Morgan Moultrie Ogle Peoria Perry Piatt Pike Pope Pulaski Putnam Randolph Richland Rock Island St. Clair Saline Sangamon Schuyler Scott Shelby Stark Stephenson Tazewell Union Vermilion Wabash Warren Washington Wayne White Whiteside Will Williamson Winnebago Woodford

5225 6389 6261 4873 6624 10275 11507 14039 5405 19278 72733 8504 6475 6876 1769 2893 2415 12084 6660 60712 96810 10992 78722 2975 2222 9056 2525 19785 50327 7290 33406 5192 7166 5848 7143 6534 23684 167542 25358 107980 12797

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 25 37 58 12 16 42 55 70 17 121 221 45 9 59 11 24 2 73 26 215 329 80 228 27 0 40 20 72 75 47 134 30 25 21 45 20 140 318 112 430 30

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.48 0.58 0.93 0.25 0.24 0.41 0.48 0.50 0.31 0.63 0.30 0.53 0.14 0.86 0.62 0.83 0.08 0.60 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.73 0.29 0.91 0.00 0.44 0.79 0.36 0.15 0.64 0.40 0.58 0.35 0.36 0.63 0.31 0.59 0.19 0.44 0.40 0.23

0.40 0.54 0.73 0.34 0.31 0.37 0.31 1.01 0.31 0.60 0.24 0.74 0.21 0.98 0.62 0.83 0.08 1.11 0.63 0.03 0.14 0.98 0.21 0.95 0.00 0.57 0.79 0.38 0.10 0.98 0.42 1.18 0.50 0.46 0.70 0.32 0.49 0.31 0.53 0.09 0.28

0.72 0.78 1.05 0.00 0.27 0.36 0.83 0.61 NA 0.70 0.27 0.96 NA 0.78 1.24 2.20 0.00 1.01 0.88 0.33 0.35 0.20 0.26 2.33 0.00 0.79 1.65 0.28 0.04 0.42 0.42 1.22 NA 0.68 0.65 0.58 0.75 0.19 0.51 0.34 0.28

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

6.02 2.16 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 1.36 1.16 1.97 1.18 0.25 0.00 1.91 0.77 1.51 0.00 1.95 0.34 0.83 1.07 1.80 0.60 5.69 0.00 1.89 4.13 0.00 0.42 1.26 1.29 1.22 0.31 2.02 0.63 1.08 1.29 0.20 0.81 1.38 0.53

6.22 2.27 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 3.51 2.09 0.00 2.16 0.71 0.00 1.28 0.77 1.51 0.00 4.85 1.28 0.00 0.65 2.39 0.89 3.93 0.00 2.64 4.13 0.00 0.00 2.12 2.22 4.55 0.88 2.59 1.01 0.47 1.93 0.00 2.80 0.00 0.79

34 80 105 34 18 131 115 143 21 279 508 112 18 128 11 42 NA 131 37 454 915 136 389 83 0 66 39 163 162 107 299 70 41 35 93 29 246 806 206 962 57

89

Still Living Without the Basics

INDIANA (IN)

Ranking 2000 43

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

10599

Indiana (IN)

County

Total OHU

Adams Allen Bartholomew Benton Blackford Boone Brown Carroll Cass

11818 128745 27936 3558 5690 17081 5897 7718 15715

90

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

0.45

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 675 691 99 42 22 62 50 69 72

OHULP 1990 11288

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.55

Rural OHULP 2000 4602

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 5.71 0.54 0.35 1.18 0.39 0.36 0.85 0.89 0.46

11.31 2.46 0.67 1.18 0.33 0.28 0.85 1.13 0.69

2.96 0.38 0.68 1.57 0.34 0.48 0.76 0.87 0.90

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.71

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

7000

1.02

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

20.88 0.78 0.76 11.44 1.50 0.21 3.90 3.87 0.00

45.43 10.17 3.85 11.44 0.88 0.51 3.90 5.41 0.00

4027 2625 186 82 20 134 178 287 134

Still Living Without the Basics Indiana (IN)

County

Total OHU

Clark Clay Clinton Crawford Daviess Dearborn Decatur DeKalb DE Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton Gibson Grant Greene Hamilton Hancock Harrison Hendricks Henry Howard Huntington Jackson Jasper Jay Jefferson Jennings Johnson Knox Kosciusko LaGrange Lake LaPorte Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke

38751 10216 12545 4181 10894 16832 9389 15134 47131 14813 66154 10199 27511 7041 7868 8082 12847 28319 13372 65933 20718 12917 37275 19486 34800 14242 16052 10686 8405 12148 10134 42434 15552 27283 11225 181633 41050 18535 53052 352164 16519 4183 13716 46898 14595 24437 5340 16696 2201 7621 8282 6415

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 146 46 54 59 84 59 44 91 118 52 227 73 124 61 69 38 33 95 91 197 17 67 105 54 94 15 73 8 114 69 57 101 49 99 102 775 186 108 170 1366 59 49 67 235 69 109 12 106 9 136 96 68

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.38 0.45 0.43 1.41 0.77 0.35 0.47 0.60 0.25 0.35 0.34 0.72 0.45 0.87 0.88 0.47 0.26 0.34 0.68 0.30 0.08 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.11 0.45 0.07 1.36 0.57 0.56 0.24 0.32 0.36 0.91 0.43 0.45 0.58 0.32 0.39 0.36 1.17 0.49 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.22 0.63 0.41 1.78 1.16 1.06

0.78 0.44 0.37 1.41 0.93 0.58 0.47 0.88 0.24 0.43 0.36 1.10 0.58 1.11 1.05 0.76 0.38 0.25 0.94 0.65 0.04 0.53 0.23 0.14 0.15 0.07 0.56 0.03 1.99 0.58 0.91 0.57 0.34 0.38 0.94 0.20 0.51 0.60 0.49 0.00 0.32 1.38 0.46 0.62 0.57 0.51 0.23 0.49 0.41 2.04 1.16 1.35

0.28 0.27 NA 2.22 0.33 0.74 0.72 0.42 0.22 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.48 1.72 1.20 0.76 0.19 0.44 0.58 0.45 0.00 1.63 0.53 0.21 0.35 0.26 0.34 0.00 0.97 0.26 0.83 0.25 0.66 0.64 1.05 0.39 0.41 0.52 0.66 0.41 0.14 0.63 0.38 0.64 0.68 0.49 0.57 0.69 0.96 1.21 0.27 1.48

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.31 1.07 0.00 3.61 1.93 1.38 1.21 2.51 0.33 0.89 1.07 1.42 1.04 1.79 2.20 1.31 0.80 0.43 0.39 0.94 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.33 0.64 0.35 0.14 0.70 4.39 1.32 0.65 0.00 0.64 0.00 4.51 1.19 1.39 1.32 0.61 0.87 0.00 4.73 1.03 1.37 0.76 0.99 0.63 1.16 0.00 5.95 3.07 5.28

5.23 0.00 0.00 3.61 3.80 3.28 0.56 4.56 0.00 2.34 1.62 3.93 0.00 2.86 3.00 2.46 0.48 0.40 0.79 4.26 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.42 0.00 8.48 3.20 1.55 0.00 0.92 0.00 5.15 0.00 2.13 2.29 0.44 0.00 0.00 7.42 0.56 3.04 1.97 2.19 0.63 0.33 0.00 7.58 3.07 7.13

294 96 95 109 232 139 67 219 259 96 564 207 280 165 135 107 92 189 171 499 36 119 183 116 162 25 193 21 591 139 75 259 99 282 349 2129 376 231 336 3000 143 119 173 401 201 260 16 213 7 437 249 205

91

Still Living Without the Basics Indiana (IN)

County

Total OHU

Perry Pike Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam Randolph Ripley Rush St. Joseph Scott Shelby Spencer Starke Steuben Sullivan Switzerland Tippecanoe Tipton Union Vanderburgh Vermillion Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick Washington Wayne Wells White Whitley

7270 5119 54649 10205 5170 12374 10937 9842 6923 100743 8832 16561 7569 8740 12738 7819 3435 55226 6469 2793 70623 6762 40998 13215 3219 19438 10264 28469 10402 9727 11711

92

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 48 25 182 50 37 55 67 35 54 345 52 76 18 59 54 66 69 161 13 18 198 48 227 44 7 29 141 117 17 25 75

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.66 0.49 0.33 0.49 0.72 0.44 0.61 0.36 0.78 0.34 0.59 0.46 0.24 0.68 0.42 0.84 2.01 0.29 0.20 0.64 0.28 0.71 0.55 0.33 0.22 0.15 1.37 0.41 0.16 0.26 0.64

0.97 0.52 0.17 0.73 0.66 0.35 0.43 0.38 0.72 0.41 0.52 0.63 0.24 0.40 0.54 0.89 2.01 0.30 0.33 0.64 0.14 0.75 0.84 0.21 0.22 0.41 1.84 0.24 0.34 0.10 0.69

1.15 0.38 0.21 0.90 0.92 0.46 NA 0.73 0.72 0.18 0.58 0.46 0.53 0.76 NA 0.38 NA 0.67 0.00 1.79 0.27 0.70 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.11 0.35 0.23 NA NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.80 1.51 0.76 0.90 0.00 0.19 1.52 1.74 0.99 0.94 2.72 1.22 0.76 0.95 1.85 1.21 10.14 0.36 0.00 2.58 0.26 3.53 0.57 0.73 0.00 0.74 5.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 2.24

2.33 2.24 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.30 0.88 1.30 0.00 0.00 5.90 2.73 0.76 1.57 1.83 0.00 10.14 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.00 2.67 0.73 2.35 0.00 2.53 7.01 1.77 0.00 0.00 3.88

86 52 445 89 104 109 129 86 129 866 93 187 23 133 256 206 242 302 29 29 420 95 496 94 21 49 541 163 67 95 215

Still Living Without the Basics

IOWA (IA)

Ranking 2000 48

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 4832

Iowa (IA)

County Adair Adams Allamakee Appanoose Audubon Benton Black Hawk Boone Bremer Buchanan Buena Vista

Total OHU 3398 1867 5722 5779 2773 9746 49683 10374 8860 7933 7499

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.42

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 13 4 20 49 5 74 146 19 11 164 27

OHULP 1990 5333

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.50

Rural OHULP 2000 2508

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.38 0.21 0.35 0.85 0.18 0.76 0.29 0.18 0.12 2.07 0.36

0.38 0.21 0.33 1.12 0.18 0.62 0.12 0.12 0.18 2.97 0.37

1.39 0.00 0.33 0.98 NA 0.41 0.42 0.32 NA 1.05 NA

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.57

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

3677

0.90

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.63 1.09 2.19 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.74 1.03 0.00 8.36 0.77

0.63 1.09 1.49 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 11.50 1.59

27 NA 45 69 14 164 414 39 21 989 48

93

Still Living Without the Basics Iowa (IA)

County Butler Calhoun Carroll Cass Cedar Cerro Gordo Cherokee Chickasaw Clarke Clay Clayton Clinton Crawford Dallas Davis Decatur Delaware Des Moines Dickinson Dubuque Emmet Fayette Floyd Franklin Fremont Greene Grundy Guthrie Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Howard Humboldt Ida Iowa Jackson Jasper Jefferson Johnson Jones Keokuk Kossuth Lee Linn Louisa Lucas Lyon Madison Mahaska Marion

94

Total OHU 6175 4513 8486 6120 7147 19374 5378 5192 3584 7259 7375 20105 6441 15584 3207 3337 6834 17270 7103 33690 4450 8778 6828 4356 3199 4205 4984 4641 6692 4795 7628 6115 7626 3974 4295 3213 6163 8078 14689 6649 44080 7560 4586 6974 15161 76753 4519 3811 4428 5326 8880 12017

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 29 22 33 26 56 45 47 14 20 38 47 115 19 78 59 46 28 35 28 142 2 24 37 12 30 26 20 7 10 14 26 30 32 60 25 9 20 63 52 46 257 21 34 29 59 227 47 47 19 25 44 62

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.47 0.49 0.39 0.42 0.78 0.23 0.87 0.27 0.56 0.52 0.64 0.57 0.29 0.50 1.84 1.38 0.41 0.20 0.39 0.42 0.04 0.27 0.54 0.28 0.94 0.62 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.34 0.49 0.42 1.51 0.58 0.28 0.32 0.78 0.35 0.69 0.58 0.28 0.74 0.42 0.39 0.30 1.04 1.23 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.52

0.47 0.49 0.48 0.66 0.77 0.32 0.19 0.37 1.10 0.51 0.67 0.43 0.41 0.70 1.84 1.38 0.61 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.11 0.30 0.88 0.43 0.94 0.34 0.40 0.15 0.30 0.40 0.47 0.62 0.69 2.21 0.34 0.28 0.32 1.54 0.25 0.68 0.77 0.48 0.74 0.38 0.51 0.30 1.04 2.12 0.43 0.47 0.85 0.74

0.77 NA 0.71 0.59 0.82 0.18 NA 0.60 0.49 0.00 0.74 0.53 0.67 0.56 1.65 0.50 NA 0.53 NA 0.51 NA 0.80 0.72 NA 1.53 0.78 0.36 0.33 0.29 0.45 0.75 0.36 0.66 0.72 0.39 NA 0.50 0.34 0.62 0.59 0.19 NA 0.74 0.72 0.62 0.42 1.99 NA 1.65 0.52 1.01 0.72

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.68 0.00 0.81 2.17 4.79 0.55 2.44 0.00 1.02 1.48 1.76 1.22 1.76 0.00 5.79 1.13 0.48 0.41 0.98 0.72 0.00 0.66 2.67 1.18 5.19 1.51 0.00 0.24 0.89 0.00 1.01 1.09 2.60 8.17 0.00 2.31 0.00 0.99 0.39 0.90 1.25 0.91 0.84 1.88 0.76 0.87 4.69 3.25 0.54 2.11 1.30 2.39

1.68 0.00 0.00 3.18 6.05 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.25 1.88 0.97 1.98 0.00 5.79 1.13 0.84 0.00 1.94 0.00 0.00 1.03 4.12 2.26 5.19 0.88 0.00 0.24 2.13 0.00 1.55 1.31 4.88 8.80 0.00 2.31 0.00 2.18 0.41 4.17 2.36 1.53 0.84 1.60 0.00 0.00 4.69 7.77 0.54 4.27 2.14 4.36

68 33 82 43 106 70 98 29 49 138 165 254 54 157 144 177 112 92 51 194 NA 39 75 35 50 38 35 16 10 27 43 43 54 148 42 18 28 170 96 92 479 42 60 95 92 413 115 247 52 38 112 143

Still Living Without the Basics Iowa (IA)

County

Total OHU

Marshall Mills Mitchell Monona Monroe Montgomery Muscatine O'Brien Osceola Page Palo Alto Plymouth Pocahontas Polk Pottawattamie Poweshiek Ringgold Sac Scott Shelby Sioux Story Tama Taylor Union Van Buren Wapello Warren Washington Wayne Webster Winnebago Winneshiek Woodbury Worth Wright

15338 5324 4294 4211 3228 4886 15847 6001 2778 6708 4119 9372 3617 149112 33844 7398 2245 4746 62334 5173 10693 29383 7018 2824 5242 3181 14784 14708 8056 2821 15878 4749 7734 39151 3278 5940

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 102 8 54 36 4 33 63 23 5 25 3 23 15 486 116 36 35 11 164 26 30 68 45 35 18 68 51 33 25 30 47 6 76 133 3 21

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.67 0.15 1.26 0.85 0.12 0.68 0.40 0.38 0.18 0.37 0.07 0.25 0.41 0.33 0.34 0.49 1.56 0.23 0.26 0.50 0.28 0.23 0.64 1.24 0.34 2.14 0.34 0.22 0.31 1.06 0.30 0.13 0.98 0.34 0.09 0.35

0.86 0.23 1.92 0.87 0.24 0.45 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.65 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.18 0.41 0.61 1.56 0.23 0.35 0.49 0.50 0.29 0.89 1.24 0.92 2.14 0.37 0.36 0.36 1.06 0.21 0.00 1.48 0.48 0.09 0.60

0.70 NA 1.10 1.31 0.00 0.37 0.22 0.56 0.57 NA NA NA NA 0.32 0.21 0.40 3.15 0.00 0.17 0.49 0.83 0.14 1.24 2.44 NA 1.45 0.27 0.24 0.43 1.36 0.19 NA 1.71 0.26 0.00 0.25

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.18 0.73 7.11 1.32 0.00 1.14 1.85 0.00 2.29 0.24 0.00 0.00 2.51 1.08 0.59 0.43 7.85 1.43 0.76 0.00 0.27 0.40 0.87 2.87 0.97 9.47 1.05 0.00 2.24 4.60 0.99 1.57 3.14 1.00 0.00 1.56

7.06 1.18 11.07 1.78 0.00 0.00 3.18 0.00 3.31 1.32 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.85 1.43 2.54 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.28 2.87 2.93 9.47 0.52 0.00 1.99 4.60 0.57 0.00 5.16 1.37 0.00 2.66

229 8 244 45 NA 52 173 32 7 62 17 51 30 1289 206 68 99 21 279 70 71 202 106 84 31 276 110 69 142 50 77 NA 151 448 NA 59

95

Still Living Without the Basics

KANSAS (KS)

Ranking 2000 50

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

4057

Kansas (KS)

County

Total OHU

Allen Anderson Atchison Barber Barton Bourbon Brown Butler Chase Chautauqua Cherokee

5775 3221 6275 2235 11393 6161 4318 21527 1246 1796 8875

96

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

OHULP 1990

0.39

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 37 45 24 10 57 36 16 61 8 20 49

3695

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.39

Rural OHULP 2000 1589

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.64 1.40 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.58 0.37 0.28 0.64 1.11 0.55

0.60 2.55 0.30 0.45 0.72 0.98 0.32 0.44 0.64 1.11 0.81

1.22 0.99 0.33 NA 0.80 0.47 0.00 0.28 NA 1.17 0.28

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.55

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

2462

0.87

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.10 2.15 0.12 0.84 1.67 0.94 2.59 0.00 2.46 1.72 2.32

3.13 4.09 0.63 0.84 1.31 0.00 2.02 0.00 2.46 1.72 3.72

51 92 57 24 169 53 26 179 10 49 84

Still Living Without the Basics Kansas (KS)

County Cheyenne Clark Clay Cloud Coffey Comanche Cowley Crawford Decatur Dickinson Doniphan Douglas Edwards Elk Ellis Ellsworth Finney Ford Franklin Geary Gove Graham Grant Gray Greeley Greenwood Hamilton Harper Harvey Haskell Hodgeman Jackson Jefferson Jewell Johnson Kearny Kingman KIA Labette Lane Leavenworth Lincoln Linn Logan Lyon McPherson Marion Marshall Meade Miami Mitchell Montgomery

Total OHU 1360 979 3617 4163 3489 872 14039 15504 1494 7903 3173 38486 1455 1412 11193 2481 12948 10852 9452 10458 1245 1263 2742 2045 602 3234 1054 2773 12581 1481 796 4727 6830 1695 174570 1542 3371 1365 9194 910 23071 1529 3807 1243 13691 11205 5114 4458 1728 10365 2850 14903

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 11 4 2 17 28 1 69 95 2 38 17 109 4 12 20 9 86 61 71 39 4 8 0 6 2 31 12 6 24 15 12 21 35 2 471 11 21 4 34 4 94 4 28 0 94 24 24 6 6 91 13 45

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.81 0.41 0.06 0.41 0.80 0.11 0.49 0.61 0.13 0.48 0.54 0.28 0.27 0.85 0.18 0.36 0.66 0.56 0.75 0.37 0.32 0.63 0.00 0.29 0.33 0.96 1.14 0.22 0.19 1.01 1.51 0.44 0.51 0.12 0.27 0.71 0.62 0.29 0.37 0.44 0.41 0.26 0.74 0.00 0.69 0.21 0.47 0.13 0.35 0.88 0.46 0.30

0.81 0.41 0.12 0.11 1.00 0.11 0.60 0.62 0.13 0.64 0.61 0.40 0.27 0.85 0.44 0.59 0.94 0.85 1.12 0.00 0.32 0.63 0.00 0.29 0.33 1.37 1.14 0.22 0.27 1.01 1.51 0.62 0.51 0.12 0.22 0.71 0.34 0.29 0.74 0.44 0.40 0.26 0.74 0.00 0.46 0.09 0.47 0.19 0.35 1.25 0.96 0.39

NA NA NA 0.61 1.58 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.55 NA 0.37 0.00 NA 0.22 NA 0.67 0.29 0.76 0.00 NA NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.81 0.00 0.59 0.00 4.93 NA 1.26 0.59 0.00 0.20 NA 0.66 NA 0.77 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 NA NA NA 0.81 0.80 0.29

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

5.11 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.19 1.32 0.00 1.36 0.41 2.65 3.26 0.00 0.94 1.27 1.39 2.03 0.57 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.91 2.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 3.03 0.50 1.54 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 1.31 0.84 2.47 1.33 2.53 2.07 0.00 1.33 0.67 1.17 0.00 1.31 3.47 0.70 1.18

5.11 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 1.97 1.95 1.32 0.00 1.66 7.53 2.65 3.26 0.00 1.59 6.79 3.97 4.36 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.86 2.82 0.00 4.44 0.00 3.03 0.81 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.31 1.93 2.47 2.20 2.53 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 8.16 1.50 0.30

27 NA NA 14 53 NA 185 174 15 76 23 230 NA 24 36 15 330 227 132 74 NA 12 0 22 NA 59 25 16 83 40 36 39 80 NA 1255 39 32 8 58 NA 226 7 46 0 162 44 37 9 11 197 11 71

97

Still Living Without the Basics Kansas (KS)

County Morris Morton Nemaha Neosho Ness Norton Osage Osborne Ottawa Pawnee Phillips Pottawatomie Pratt Rawlins Reno Republic Rice Riley Rooks Rush Russell Saline Scott Sedgwick Seward Shawnee Sheridan Sherman Smith Stafford Stanton Stevens Sumner Thomas Trego Wabaunsee Wallace Washington Wichita Wilson Woodson Wyandotte

98

Total OHU 2539 1306 3959 6739 1516 2266 6490 1940 2430 2739 2496 6771 3963 1269 25498 2557 4050 22137 2362 1548 3207 21436 2045 176444 7419 68920 1124 2758 1953 2010 858 1988 9888 3226 1412 2633 674 2673 967 4203 1642 59700

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 4 16 23 55 0 12 33 10 16 11 16 8 21 6 147 10 16 60 13 16 22 25 0 568 23 216 18 6 21 2 11 18 39 8 8 32 0 40 7 31 8 251

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.16 1.23 0.58 0.82 0.00 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.64 0.12 0.53 0.47 0.58 0.39 0.40 0.27 0.55 1.03 0.69 0.12 0.00 0.32 0.31 0.31 1.60 0.22 1.08 0.10 1.28 0.91 0.39 0.25 0.57 1.22 0.00 1.50 0.72 0.74 0.49 0.42

0.16 1.23 0.58 1.31 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.52 0.66 0.32 1.18 0.15 0.77 0.47 0.34 0.39 0.33 0.09 0.55 1.03 1.01 0.41 0.00 0.21 0.88 0.24 1.60 0.86 1.08 0.10 1.28 1.33 0.46 0.00 0.57 1.22 0.00 1.50 0.72 0.92 0.49 0.39

NA NA 0.37 0.68 0.00 NA NA 0.68 1.37 NA 0.68 NA 1.18 NA 0.66 NA 0.66 0.00 0.00 NA 0.78 0.13 0.00 0.23 0.52 0.28 2.10 NA 0.88 0.00 5.63 2.34 0.27 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 2.28 0.00 0.59 NA 0.44

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 6.11 0.49 0.98 0.00 1.73 0.33 1.28 1.30 1.34 0.79 0.31 0.49 2.47 1.45 2.37 0.44 0.19 0.00 5.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.56 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 4.60 5.10 0.00 2.80 3.48 1.98 1.06 0.70

0.00 6.11 0.49 3.02 0.00 3.70 0.33 1.28 1.30 5.45 1.61 0.42 2.41 2.47 1.65 2.37 1.23 0.00 0.00 5.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 4.60 5.10 0.00 2.80 3.48 2.96 1.06 4.76

12 25 40 92 0 12 110 9 61 19 29 17 35 10 271 12 37 131 18 19 31 45 0 1460 61 533 24 NA 29 NA 17 31 82 7 40 55 0 82 23 57 NA 763

Still Living Without the Basics

KENTUCKY (KY)

Ranking 2000 7

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 14947

Kentucky (KY)

County Adair Allen Anderson Ballard Barren Bath Bell Boone Bourbon Boyd Boyle Bracken Breathitt Breckinridge

Total OHU 6747 6910 7320 3395 15346 4445 12004 31258 7681 20010 10574 3228 6170 7324

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.94

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 138 163 43 16 143 93 159 136 20 104 78 61 245 112

OHULP 1990 33623

Percent of OHULP 1990 2.44

Rural OHULP 2000 11672

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 2.05 2.36 0.59 0.47 0.93 2.09 1.32 0.44 0.26 0.52 0.74 1.89 3.97 1.53

2.75 2.82 1.25 0.47 1.34 2.09 2.06 0.85 0.40 0.39 1.15 1.89 4.60 1.53

3.29 1.87 0.47 0.65 1.17 2.65 2.39 0.30 NA 0.61 0.54 3.91 4.09 2.77

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.71

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

30921

4.84

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.96 6.43 2.66 0.41 3.50 4.98 2.39 1.55 0.44 1.10 1.58 2.58 8.12 2.66

7.20 9.82 5.85 0.41 6.80 4.98 3.42 6.40 1.33 0.00 4.14 2.58 9.83 2.66

398 574 137 34 600 216 252 308 31 257 204 140 585 267

99

Still Living Without the Basics Kentucky (KY)

County

Total OHU

Bullitt Butler Caldwell Calloway Campbell Carlisle Carroll Carter Casey Christian Clark Clay Clinton Crittenden Cumberland Daviess Edmonson Elliott Estill Fayette Fleming Floyd Franklin Fulton Gallatin Garrard Grant Graves Grayson Green Greenup Hancock Hardin Harlan Harrison Hart Henderson Henry Hickman Hopkins Jackson Jefferson Jessamine Johnson Kenton Knott Knox Larue Laurel Lawrence Lee Leslie

22171 5059 5431 13862 34742 2208 3940 10342 6260 24857 13015 8556 4086 3829 2976 36033 4648 2638 6108 108288 5367 16881 19907 3237 2902 5741 8175 14841 9596 4706 14536 3215 34497 13291 7012 6769 18095 5844 2188 18820 5307 287012 13867 9103 59444 6717 12416 5275 20353 5954 2985 4885

100

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 140 51 47 70 96 2 24 180 217 205 55 253 67 58 83 121 48 65 241 358 181 163 147 15 48 76 48 58 115 67 178 47 201 260 64 128 102 98 13 166 188 1086 150 123 245 165 197 86 182 133 95 163

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.63 1.01 0.87 0.50 0.28 0.09 0.61 1.74 3.47 0.82 0.42 2.96 1.64 1.51 2.79 0.34 1.03 2.46 3.95 0.33 3.37 0.97 0.74 0.46 1.65 1.32 0.59 0.39 1.20 1.42 1.22 1.46 0.58 1.96 0.91 1.89 0.56 1.68 0.59 0.88 3.54 0.38 1.08 1.35 0.41 2.46 1.59 1.63 0.89 2.23 3.18 3.34

1.48 1.01 1.39 0.55 1.03 0.09 1.08 2.00 3.47 1.81 0.83 3.48 1.64 2.04 2.79 0.86 1.03 2.46 5.60 1.16 4.27 1.05 1.77 0.75 1.65 1.87 0.75 0.47 1.55 1.42 2.49 1.52 1.21 2.79 1.50 2.05 0.88 1.68 0.59 1.43 3.54 0.84 2.65 1.75 1.67 2.46 2.09 1.97 1.02 2.73 3.18 3.34

0.21 1.02 1.13 0.23 0.38 NA 1.08 1.57 2.41 0.44 0.89 5.03 2.03 0.63 3.59 0.40 1.56 3.29 4.64 0.35 3.49 1.63 1.06 NA 3.51 1.36 0.84 0.16 2.12 1.33 1.05 1.15 0.96 2.07 1.01 2.07 0.41 2.73 1.28 0.91 3.97 0.26 1.59 1.27 0.47 1.75 0.78 2.16 1.16 2.47 2.72 4.04

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.77 1.68 3.41 1.01 1.08 0.00 1.90 3.25 8.17 2.99 0.41 5.60 2.62 3.88 5.61 0.86 2.68 5.80 7.17 0.62 10.28 1.82 2.43 0.59 1.62 3.38 0.22 1.14 4.01 5.23 3.09 0.86 2.54 3.56 3.22 3.23 1.29 5.74 1.41 1.87 6.48 0.86 2.58 3.47 1.21 6.21 2.64 6.06 2.23 4.53 6.36 6.06

6.67 1.68 7.85 1.21 4.18 0.00 5.03 4.00 8.17 9.62 1.88 6.50 2.62 7.30 5.61 3.28 2.68 5.80 10.32 3.15 14.34 2.04 10.90 1.02 1.62 5.61 0.31 1.73 5.79 5.23 5.86 0.98 7.52 4.60 6.73 3.24 3.31 5.74 1.41 3.60 6.48 3.78 7.30 4.51 5.77 6.21 3.61 8.01 2.84 5.54 6.36 6.06

322 124 80 119 229 NA 28 416 550 702 110 489 121 229 205 310 161 141 501 785 419 317 315 17 76 199 108 132 170 154 474 147 527 480 123 296 205 224 36 334 290 2401 444 293 584 372 344 239 409 348 236 302

Still Living Without the Basics Kentucky (KY)

County Letcher Lewis Lincoln Livingston Logan Lyon McCracken McCreary McLean Madison Magoffin Marion Marshall Martin Mason Meade Menifee Mercer Metcalfe Monroe Montgomery Morgan Muhlenberg Nelson Nicholas Ohio Oldham Owen Owsley Pendleton Perry Pike Powell Pulaski Robertson Rockcastle Rowan Russell Scott Shelby Simpson Spencer Taylor Todd Trigg Trimble Union Warren Washington Wayne Webster Whitley

Total OHU 10085 5422 9206 3996 10506 2898 27736 6520 3984 27152 5024 6613 12412 4776 6847 9470 2537 8423 4016 4741 8902 4752 12357 13953 2710 8899 14856 4086 1894 5170 11460 27612 5044 22719 866 6544 7927 6941 12110 12104 6415 4251 9233 4569 5215 3137 5710 35365 4121 7913 5560 13780

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 197 248 200 53 116 33 116 161 39 183 74 120 47 89 78 44 64 40 107 97 66 106 80 141 33 167 40 123 88 109 335 293 138 341 27 187 72 94 45 92 45 41 117 84 58 61 30 150 83 262 38 251

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 1.95 4.57 2.17 1.33 1.10 1.14 0.42 2.47 0.98 0.67 1.47 1.81 0.38 1.86 1.14 0.46 2.52 0.47 2.66 2.05 0.74 2.23 0.65 1.01 1.22 1.88 0.27 3.01 4.65 2.11 2.92 1.06 2.74 1.50 3.12 2.86 0.91 1.35 0.37 0.76 0.70 0.96 1.27 1.84 1.11 1.94 0.53 0.42 2.01 3.31 0.68 1.82

1.96 4.57 2.72 1.33 1.23 1.14 0.40 2.47 0.98 1.22 1.47 2.32 0.44 1.86 1.90 0.55 2.52 0.85 2.66 2.05 0.75 2.51 0.79 1.48 1.22 2.45 0.22 3.01 4.65 2.11 3.64 1.00 3.62 2.25 3.12 3.30 1.29 1.35 0.32 0.41 1.72 0.96 2.53 1.84 1.23 2.03 0.37 0.40 2.01 4.97 0.88 2.10

1.84 4.41 3.24 0.78 1.00 NA 0.56 3.01 NA 1.02 2.59 2.55 0.26 3.86 1.47 0.00 2.73 0.72 5.13 2.21 1.32 4.04 0.94 1.34 1.26 0.86 0.24 5.52 6.40 1.48 2.57 0.69 3.01 2.33 7.41 3.50 NA 2.01 NA 0.61 0.63 2.28 2.22 4.88 1.16 1.72 0.74 0.31 1.37 5.00 0.62 2.10

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.74 8.75 4.86 0.42 3.01 1.86 1.14 4.94 1.64 2.55 3.13 4.12 0.57 2.62 3.96 0.38 3.08 1.27 6.82 3.63 1.34 3.84 2.13 2.94 5.07 4.88 1.22 6.30 5.83 7.48 5.83 2.52 6.54 3.30 6.78 4.25 1.90 1.61 0.51 3.28 2.88 3.36 4.28 4.98 3.49 4.09 2.59 1.74 8.04 4.74 2.62 2.83

3.74 8.75 6.12 0.42 4.48 1.86 2.24 4.94 1.64 7.03 3.13 7.31 0.70 2.62 8.53 0.43 3.08 3.04 6.82 3.63 1.52 4.28 2.69 5.02 5.07 6.38 0.00 6.30 5.83 7.48 7.24 2.36 8.41 5.51 6.78 5.19 2.86 1.61 1.65 4.73 8.88 3.36 9.62 4.98 4.87 4.76 0.97 2.87 8.04 7.69 3.97 2.81

342 549 448 114 219 55 241 299 112 439 197 280 110 145 135 94 149 74 284 166 158 229 203 343 45 400 117 327 195 224 872 592 332 692 60 381 137 212 69 214 142 95 172 248 97 126 38 435 189 579 99 553

101

Still Living Without the Basics Kentucky (KY)

County Wolfe Woodford

102

Total OHU 2816 8893

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 128 36

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 4.55 0.40

4.55 0.33

6.30 0.60

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

5.75 1.99

5.75 3.35

277 68

Still Living Without the Basics

LOUISIANA (LA)

Ranking 2000 17

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 10717

Louisiana (LA)

Parish

Total OHU

Acadia Allen Ascension Assumption Avoyelles Beauregard Bienville Bossier Caddo Calcasieu Caldwell Cameron Catahoula

21142 8102 26691 8239 14736 12104 6108 36628 97974 68613 3941 3592 4082

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.65

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 61 71 146 84 97 40 82 183 723 380 27 32 43

OHULP 1990 14318

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.95

Rural OHULP 2000 3411

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.29 0.88 0.55 1.02 0.66 0.33 1.34 0.50 0.74 0.55 0.69 0.89 1.05

0.39 0.67 1.51 0.65 0.60 0.17 1.39 1.11 1.41 0.21 0.69 0.89 1.05

0.64 0.91 0.58 1.41 0.77 0.67 1.32 1.02 0.43 0.62 0.74 1.93 0.76

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.78

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

8335

1.83

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.31 2.19 1.62 3.58 0.84 0.00 3.03 1.61 1.84 1.19 2.23 1.23 2.82

0.63 2.38 5.51 1.99 1.04 0.00 3.39 3.34 4.79 0.37 2.23 1.23 2.82

153 160 482 278 183 79 141 471 1626 760 40 102 108

103

Still Living Without the Basics Louisiana (LA)

Parish Claiborne Concordia De Soto East Baton Rouge East Carroll East Feliciana Evangeline Franklin Grant Iberia Iberville Jackson Jefferson Jefferson Davis Lafayette Lafourche La Salle Lincoln Livingston Madison Morehouse Natchitoches Orleans Ouachita Plaquemines Pointe Coupee Rapides Red River Richland Sabine St. Bernard St. Charles St. Helena St. James St. John the Baptist St. Landry St. Martin St. Mary St. Tammany Tangipahoa Tensas Terrebonne Union Vermilion Vernon Washington Webster West Baton Rouge West Carroll West Feliciana Winn

104

Total OHU 6270 7521 9691 156365 2969 6699 12736 7754 7073 25381 10674 6086 176234 11480 72372 32057 5291 15235 32630 4469 11382 14263 188251 55216 9021 8397 47120 3414 7490 9221 25123 16422 3873 6992 14283 32328 17164 19317 69253 36558 2416 35997 8857 19832 18260 16467 16501 7663 4458 3645 5930

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 90 43 147 768 14 103 118 54 65 169 148 66 959 61 251 137 38 54 194 76 89 120 1856 332 97 88 206 38 100 71 118 72 97 60 24 285 127 142 190 276 24 181 80 81 67 149 118 35 21 26 23

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 1.44 0.57 1.52 0.49 0.47 1.54 0.93 0.70 0.92 0.67 1.39 1.08 0.54 0.53 0.35 0.43 0.72 0.35 0.59 1.70 0.78 0.84 0.99 0.60 1.08 1.05 0.44 1.11 1.34 0.77 0.47 0.44 2.50 0.86 0.17 0.88 0.74 0.74 0.27 0.75 0.99 0.50 0.90 0.41 0.37 0.90 0.72 0.46 0.47 0.71 0.39

1.58 0.49 1.81 0.27 1.01 1.58 0.90 0.63 0.92 0.39 1.50 0.96 0.00 0.30 0.22 0.54 0.84 0.34 0.77 0.67 0.82 1.05 0.00 0.22 1.81 1.22 0.50 0.74 1.26 0.71 0.00 0.22 2.50 1.35 0.53 0.92 1.00 1.15 0.43 0.83 0.99 0.84 1.04 0.38 0.33 1.05 0.85 0.52 0.47 0.71 0.63

0.96 0.94 2.71 0.38 0.79 1.82 0.94 0.54 1.33 0.35 1.94 1.72 0.43 0.62 0.32 0.34 1.20 0.25 NA 3.15 0.53 0.60 0.78 0.30 NA 0.72 0.11 1.17 1.40 0.53 0.31 0.51 2.33 0.79 0.00 0.99 0.84 0.69 0.28 0.72 NA 0.35 0.70 0.53 0.53 0.91 0.55 0.00 0.46 1.86 1.24

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.23 1.30 3.60 1.01 0.81 3.75 1.23 1.97 3.03 1.77 2.02 2.01 0.82 1.45 0.60 1.16 1.03 0.47 1.41 2.64 2.22 1.39 1.80 1.02 3.76 2.37 0.94 2.13 2.32 2.62 1.95 1.41 5.73 2.28 0.00 1.26 1.12 0.95 0.40 1.85 2.32 1.49 2.73 0.87 0.43 1.90 1.34 0.16 1.89 0.41 0.65

3.81 1.64 4.93 0.00 2.45 4.06 1.43 2.16 3.03 1.28 2.76 2.29 0.00 1.07 0.48 1.08 1.46 0.32 1.38 0.91 2.55 2.05 0.00 0.61 6.87 3.02 1.02 2.29 1.93 2.91 0.00 1.24 5.73 3.87 0.00 2.04 1.89 1.78 0.29 2.42 2.32 2.87 3.44 1.25 0.87 2.46 1.66 0.00 1.89 0.41 1.30

185 135 287 1945 32 251 270 102 128 543 408 160 2700 136 669 307 67 128 423 125 240 277 5192 844 347 226 606 132 281 145 339 182 240 199 64 639 274 412 465 620 43 566 137 165 189 317 289 94 52 94 35

Still Living Without the Basics

MAINE (ME)

Ranking 2000 8

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 4468

Maine (ME)

County

Total OHU

Androscoggin Aroostook Cumberland Franklin Hancock Kennebec Knox Lincoln Oxford Penobscot

42028 30356 107989 11806 21864 47683 16608 14158 22314 58096

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.86

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 228 329 369 185 370 332 159 146 294 578

OHULP 1990 7477

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.61

Rural OHULP 2000 3786

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.54 1.08 0.34 1.57 1.69 0.70 0.96 1.03 1.32 0.99

0.59 1.29 0.59 1.89 1.79 0.91 1.33 1.03 1.60 1.43

0.68 1.23 0.20 0.90 1.13 1.01 0.80 1.21 1.39 1.10

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.26

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

6562

2.63

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.47 2.06 1.01 2.58 5.25 1.28 2.73 3.52 3.13 2.73

1.58 2.70 3.44 3.79 5.56 2.12 4.15 3.52 4.34 4.62

431 618 795 348 673 620 249 256 571 1097

105

Still Living Without the Basics Maine (ME)

County Piscataquis Sagadahoc Somerset Waldo Washington York

106

Total OHU 7278 14117 20496 14726 14118 74563

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 130 118 341 263 299 327

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 1.79 0.84 1.66 1.79 2.12 0.44

1.79 1.11 2.18 1.98 2.32 0.65

0.91 1.02 0.74 1.35 1.69 0.57

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

5.19 2.24 3.52 3.13 4.66 1.22

5.19 2.77 4.88 3.44 5.13 2.12

262 230 700 462 511 710

Still Living Without the Basics

MARYLAND (MD)

Ranking 2000 42

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 9033

Maryland (MD)

County/City

Total OHU

Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett

29322 178670 299877 25447 11097 52503 31223 41668 12706 70060 11476

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.46

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 162 542 875 137 96 167 140 338 165 260 90

OHULP 1990 10206

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.58

Rural OHULP 2000 2176

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.55 0.30 0.29 0.54 0.87 0.32 0.45 0.81 1.30 0.37 0.78

1.15 0.42 0.55 0.91 1.12 0.33 0.44 1.64 1.74 0.95 0.74

0.58 0.43 0.24 0.93 1.67 0.34 0.34 1.16 1.49 0.92 0.63

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.82

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

5308

1.74

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.58 1.01 0.70 0.76 2.23 2.14 1.08 3.22 1.89 2.08 1.75

3.65 2.96 1.65 1.34 3.20 0.84 1.98 10.41 2.47 6.76 1.66

314 1328 2267 284 230 422 280 875 369 587 177

107

Still Living Without the Basics Maryland (MD)

County/City

Total OHU

Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester Baltimore City

79667 90043 7666 324565 286610 15315 30642 8361 14307 49726 32218 19694 257996

108

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 401 240 73 1122 1268 120 251 80 93 200 79 66 2068

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.50 0.27 0.95 0.35 0.44 0.78 0.82 0.96 0.65 0.40 0.25 0.34 0.80

0.67 0.38 1.04 0.44 0.98 1.23 1.10 1.17 0.79 0.93 0.33 0.83 0.00

0.43 0.39 0.91 0.25 0.37 1.04 1.04 0.76 0.62 0.73 0.40 0.51 0.63

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.56 2.00 1.94 1.00 0.73 4.47 4.73 2.55 1.81 0.67 0.56 0.29 1.46

3.60 5.17 3.02 0.00 2.66 6.02 6.05 5.27 3.40 3.72 2.44 0.73 0.00

1037 585 149 3134 3780 248 1020 141 171 388 150 130 5355

Still Living Without the Basics

MASSACHUSETTS (MA)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

21

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

15211

Massachusetts (MA)

County Barnstable Berkshire Bristol Dukes Essex Franklin Hampden Hampshire Middlesex Nantucket Norfolk Plymouth Suffolk Worcester

Total OHU 94822 56006 205411 6421 275419 29466 175288 55991 561220 3699 248827 168361 278722 283927

0.62

Lacking complete plumbing facilities (OHULP) 280 211 1028 20 2479 133 1435 257 2917 0 898 704 3199 1650

OHULP 1990 9096

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.40

Rural OHULP 2000 734

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.37

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent Percent of Percent of Percent of of Rural population OHULP OHULP OHULP (as above 65 below (as % of % of Rural years in poverty level OHU) OHU) OHULP in 1999 0.30 0.38 0.50 0.31 0.90 0.45 0.82 0.46 0.52 0.00 0.36 0.42 1.15 0.58

0.29 0.38 0.28 0.51 0.22 0.60 0.55 0.40 0.26 0.00 0.38 0.48 0.00 0.31

0.34 0.31 0.32 0.00 0.50 0.38 0.47 0.24 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.41 0.97 0.37

0.97 0.86 1.19 0.00 2.38 1.57 2.28 1.03 1.36 0.00 1.13 1.22 2.09 1.81

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1150

0.35

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 0.92 1.62 0.00 1.70 2.40 1.42 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 0.00 1.50

719 412 2831 26 6440 245 3639 567 7286 0 2077 1661 8986 4161

109

Still Living Without the Basics

MICHIGAN (MI)

Ranking 2000 44

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 16971

Michigan (MI)

County

Total OHU

Alcona Alger Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie

5132 3785 38165 12818 9222 6710 3353 21035 43930 6500

110

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.45

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 36 40 157 24 64 44 26 69 63 20

OHULP 1990 14687

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.43

Rural OHULP 2000 4680

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.70 1.06 0.41 0.19 0.69 0.66 0.78 0.33 0.14 0.31

0.71 1.06 0.40 0.29 0.69 0.66 0.78 0.35 0.21 0.31

NA 1.66 0.60 0.18 0.51 0.59 0.71 0.11 0.25 NA

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.50

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

6137

0.64

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.95 1.95 1.36 0.27 2.02 1.95 3.08 0.64 0.43 1.04

2.99 1.95 1.91 0.70 2.02 1.95 3.08 0.88 0.68 1.04

63 69 378 69 117 94 51 121 151 32

Still Living Without the Basics Michigan (MI)

County

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo

63569 16349 54100 19676 10400 10835 13474 12686 23653 5625 15836 11386 40167 12577 169825 10561 7425 30396 14501 17335 13793 14597 108593 20606 11727 5748 22425 58168 93479

256 191 210 79 75 44 66 120 60 27 71 42 72 61 691 122 45 70 47 166 139 76 392 103 54 56 83 193 213

0.40 1.17 0.39 0.40 0.72 0.41 0.49 0.95 0.25 0.48 0.45 0.37 0.18 0.49 0.41 1.16 0.61 0.23 0.32 0.96 1.01 0.52 0.36 0.50 0.46 0.97 0.37 0.33 0.23

0.58 1.49 0.36 0.33 0.77 0.50 0.60 1.15 0.38 0.61 0.85 0.86 0.23 0.57 0.19 1.29 0.69 0.24 0.28 1.19 1.55 0.53 0.16 0.41 0.73 1.33 0.44 0.31 0.23

0.26 1.19 0.36 0.52 0.24 NA 0.36 0.50 0.36 0.31 0.64 0.30 0.28 0.61 0.20 0.64 0.41 0.14 0.57 0.86 1.35 0.78 0.47 0.33 0.49 0.75 0.97 0.31 0.20

0.99 5.07 0.69 2.03 0.94 0.85 1.33 2.09 0.33 1.24 1.35 0.53 0.66 0.95 1.05 4.56 2.82 0.61 1.01 3.75 1.38 1.28 0.82 2.02 0.50 1.32 0.61 1.08 0.39

1.55 7.67 0.35 1.53 1.56 1.23 3.88 2.98 0.67 1.62 2.96 2.15 0.83 0.99 0.46 5.23 3.20 0.00 1.10 5.14 3.13 1.52 0.31 1.12 0.85 2.31 2.08 1.57 1.74

869 965 435 164 142 78 107 394 134 64 141 86 293 99 1782 550 69 140 79 660 241 116 1038 258 88 77 179 452 514

Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo

6428 212890 998 4704 30729 8436 35930 55384 2481 5067 309203 9860 25767 11406 14915 10529 31769 5450 53772 22079 4455 63330 17599

36 939 27 85 101 26 146 129 39 48 753 59 125 56 112 71 65 37 170 137 26 255 99

0.56 0.44 2.71 1.81 0.33 0.31 0.41 0.23 1.57 0.95 0.24 0.60 0.49 0.49 0.75 0.67 0.20 0.68 0.32 0.62 0.58 0.40 0.56

0.60 0.26 2.71 1.81 0.44 0.33 0.26 0.42 2.35 1.12 0.10 0.60 0.98 0.56 0.92 0.79 0.13 0.68 0.34 0.71 0.58 0.29 0.54

0.32 0.46 2.58 1.22 NA NA 0.60 0.33 0.70 NA 0.19 0.54 0.55 0.18 0.53 0.76 0.32 0.77 0.73 0.75 0.38 0.33 0.62

1.56 1.32 3.70 3.32 0.58 1.26 1.21 2.02 2.69 3.00 0.80 0.75 1.31 1.22 1.79 1.43 0.54 1.23 1.04 2.43 1.64 0.89 1.09

2.04 0.74 3.70 3.32 0.99 1.26 0.89 4.66 3.72 3.82 1.87 1.33 3.96 1.29 3.78 2.62 0.77 1.23 0.77 2.70 1.64 0.76 0.91

58 2404 39 186 252 40 329 272 63 72 1863 109 255 96 521 124 101 73 427 520 59 615 229

111

Still Living Without the Basics Michigan (MI)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Oakland

471115

1356

0.29

0.16

0.26

1.08

2.67

3545

Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wexford

9778 8842 3456 8861 3921 8995 81662 6155 11250 80430 62072 23381 16871 3606 26896 21454 27982 125327 768440 11824

48 64 60 66 38 24 243 43 35 347 165 129 129 25 94 111 139 483 5404 60

0.49 0.72 1.74 0.74 0.97 0.27 0.30 0.70 0.31 0.43 0.27 0.55 0.76 0.69 0.35 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.70 0.51

0.49 0.72 1.74 0.80 0.97 0.24 0.30 0.88 0.41 0.40 0.34 0.57 0.86 1.08 0.19 0.41 0.56 0.21 0.33 0.68

NA 1.04 1.42 0.79 0.97 NA 0.57 0.51 NA 0.37 0.31 0.73 0.46 0.63 0.49 0.30 0.82 0.29 0.37 0.70

2.02 2.11 5.20 2.27 0.75 0.81 0.82 1.85 0.15 1.28 0.61 1.39 3.02 1.34 0.96 1.89 1.42 0.53 1.84 1.54

2.02 2.11 5.20 2.72 0.75 1.27 1.99 2.14 0.29 2.64 1.58 2.01 3.11 1.90 0.80 1.88 1.97 0.53 2.01 3.33

102 119 108 166 47 28 734 66 66 990 353 389 534 49 155 218 396 1002 15096 115

112

Still Living Without the Basics

MINNESOTA (MN)

Ranking 2000 37

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 9581

Minnesota (MN)

County Aitkin Anoka Becker Beltrami Benton Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carlton Carver Cass

Total OHU 6644 106428 11844 14337 13065 2377 21062 10598 12064 24356 10893

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.51

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 157 331 139 153 34 8 71 29 99 76 144

OHULP 1990 9382

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.57

Rural OHULP 2000 4367

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 2.36 0.31 1.17 1.07 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.82 0.31 1.32

2.36 0.51 1.35 1.32 0.72 0.34 0.46 0.61 1.24 0.29 1.32

1.64 0.45 0.82 0.28 0.64 0.79 0.60 0.22 0.81 0.58 1.30

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.82

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

6022

1.28

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

6.62 1.24 2.67 2.85 1.01 0.72 0.80 0.61 2.78 0.64 3.87

6.62 2.89 4.00 3.68 2.91 0.72 1.11 2.02 3.44 3.02 3.87

294 947 284 370 66 10 170 47 156 139 274

113

Still Living Without the Basics Minnesota (MN)

County

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Chippewa Chisago Clay Clearwater Cook Cottonwood Crow Wing Dakota Dodge Douglas Faribault Fillmore Freeborn Goodhue Grant Hennepin Houston Hubbard Isanti Itasca Jackson Kanabec Kandiyohi Kittson Koochiching Lac qui Parle Lake Lake of the Woods Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon McLeod Mahnomen Marshall Martin Meeker Mille Lacs

5361 14454 18670 3330 2350 4917 22250 131151 6420 13276 6652 8228 13356 16983 2534 456129 7633 7435 11236 17789 4556 5759 15936 2167 6040 3316 4646 1903 9630 2653 9715 13449 1969 4101 9067 8590 8638

12 49 31 57 157 10 151 324 16 42 12 183 83 87 17 1936 36 105 67 229 25 99 64 14 48 23 86 28 55 25 49 58 4 30 35 42 82

0.22 0.34 0.17 1.71 6.68 0.20 0.68 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.18 2.22 0.62 0.51 0.67 0.42 0.47 1.41 0.60 1.29 0.55 1.72 0.40 0.65 0.79 0.69 1.85 1.47 0.57 0.94 0.50 0.43 0.20 0.73 0.39 0.49 0.95

0.46 0.37 0.14 1.71 6.68 0.32 0.68 0.25 0.37 0.39 0.23 2.22 0.76 0.47 0.67 0.12 0.64 1.33 0.68 1.49 0.79 1.96 0.47 0.65 1.82 0.69 2.28 1.47 0.67 0.94 0.58 0.42 0.20 0.73 0.56 0.47 1.17

0.29 0.29 0.17 1.30 NA 0.42 0.53 0.14 0.70 0.52 0.49 1.81 0.64 0.69 NA 0.27 0.52 0.67 1.13 0.78 0.55 1.47 0.18 1.27 0.71 0.59 0.70 0.95 0.48 0.87 0.56 0.38 NA 0.90 0.63 0.34 1.00

0.00 0.83 0.40 6.09 6.38 0.20 1.25 0.16 1.15 0.80 0.30 7.94 2.48 2.40 0.84 1.61 1.39 3.63 1.46 3.63 0.00 4.91 1.26 1.65 3.03 3.34 1.69 4.55 2.07 2.22 0.56 1.14 0.00 1.34 0.62 1.26 1.63

0.00 1.49 0.00 6.09 6.38 0.35 1.85 0.86 1.51 1.70 0.39 7.94 4.47 4.03 0.84 0.00 2.29 3.06 2.70 3.79 0.00 5.13 2.68 1.65 8.28 3.34 3.05 4.55 3.74 2.22 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.34 1.39 1.00 1.98

14 113 45 107 297 15 284 807 25 70 22 890 178 188 26 5445 79 251 118 410 39 160 140 22 127 60 145 41 121 47 109 109 NA 59 69 66 185

Morrison Mower Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Olmsted Otter Tail Pennington Pine Pipestone Polk Pope Ramsey Red Lake

11816 15582 3722 10642 7939 3010 47807 22671 5525 9939 4069 12070 4513 201236 1727

84 79 22 43 48 14 160 138 36 187 17 87 26 930 6

0.71 0.51 0.59 0.40 0.60 0.47 0.33 0.61 0.65 1.88 0.42 0.72 0.58 0.46 0.35

0.94 0.48 0.59 0.50 0.43 0.47 0.16 0.70 0.61 2.14 0.27 0.73 0.58 0.00 0.35

0.47 0.47 0.55 NA 0.77 0.86 0.52 0.77 NA 1.52 NA 1.44 0.60 0.29 1.14

1.92 1.07 2.22 0.50 2.72 2.14 1.32 1.71 0.60 4.98 0.00 1.36 1.87 1.55 0.91

3.05 0.49 2.22 2.53 1.04 2.14 0.00 2.37 2.60 5.94 0.00 2.13 1.87 0.00 0.91

184 170 32 93 136 16 334 259 48 367 37 151 42 3148 11

114

Still Living Without the Basics Minnesota (MN)

County

Total OHU

Redwood Renville Rice Rock Roseau St. Louis Scott Sherburne Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Wabasha Wadena Waseca Washington Watonwan Wilkin Winona Wright Yellow Medicine

6674 6779 18888 3843 6190 82619 30692 21581 5772 47604 12846 3751 4353 9342 1717 8277 5426 7059 71462 4627 2752 18744 31465 4439

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 19 26 52 6 64 748 159 58 31 164 54 18 18 115 4 51 67 21 107 16 22 137 124 11

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.28 0.38 0.28 0.16 1.03 0.91 0.52 0.27 0.54 0.34 0.42 0.48 0.41 1.23 0.23 0.62 1.23 0.30 0.15 0.35 0.80 0.73 0.39 0.25

0.42 0.38 0.36 0.31 1.11 1.70 0.33 0.29 0.54 0.43 0.66 0.51 0.64 1.32 0.23 0.68 1.87 0.28 0.12 0.29 0.53 1.14 0.40 0.31

0.61 0.23 0.40 0.39 1.57 0.61 0.22 0.33 0.71 0.59 0.94 NA 0.44 0.69 NA 0.61 1.31 NA 0.13 NA 0.87 0.42 0.52 0.60

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.85 1.45 0.47 1.62 3.71 1.95 1.68 0.85 2.41 1.39 2.44 0.66 1.40 2.35 0.00 6.23 1.89 1.49 0.35 0.45 0.00 2.92 1.32 0.72

1.33 1.45 1.96 3.75 4.83 4.93 1.23 2.71 2.41 1.06 0.00 1.23 3.57 3.03 0.00 5.00 2.85 3.54 0.00 0.80 0.00 7.12 2.14 0.95

32 38 82 7 127 1279 441 100 38 330 153 35 33 413 8 100 118 24 271 69 31 389 290 28

115

Still Living Without the Basics

MISSISSIPPI (MS)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

9

9015

Mississippi (MS)

County

Total OHU

Adams Alcorn Amite Attala Benton Bolivar Calhoun Carroll Chickasaw

13677 14224 5271 7567 2999 13776 6019 4071 7253

116

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.86

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 91 80 73 105 38 209 40 43 64

OHULP 1990 17625

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.93

Rural OHULP 2000 6109

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.67 0.56 1.38 1.39 1.27 1.52 0.66 1.06 0.88

1.27 0.72 1.38 1.96 1.27 2.59 0.64 1.06 0.92

1.10 0.56 2.17 1.76 0.92 2.17 0.72 2.77 0.70

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.15

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

14849

3.18

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.67 1.57 2.81 3.84 2.49 3.34 0.33 1.05 1.92

3.87 2.04 2.81 5.36 2.49 5.09 0.21 1.05 2.43

193 164 186 257 168 590 79 89 136

Still Living Without the Basics Mississippi (MS)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Choctaw Claiborne Clarke Clay Coahoma Copiah Covington DeSoto Forrest Franklin George Greene Grenada Hancock Harrison Hinds Holmes Humphreys Issaquena Itawamba Jackson Jasper Jefferson Jefferson Davis Jones Kemper Lafayette Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Leake Lee Leflore Lincoln Lowndes Madison Marion Marshall Monroe Montgomery

3686 3685 6978 8152 10553 10142 7126 38792 27183 3211 6742 4148 8820 16897 71538 91030 7314 3765 726 8773 47676 6708 3308 5177 24275 3909 14373 14396 29990 5040 7611 29200 12956 12538 22849 27219 9336 12163 14603 4690

29 85 89 60 170 237 68 264 151 55 64 34 69 57 261 635 118 92 19 36 263 108 75 63 105 81 81 26 238 48 88 123 100 81 78 217 86 204 107 32

0.79 2.31 1.28 0.74 1.61 2.34 0.95 0.68 0.56 1.71 0.95 0.82 0.78 0.34 0.36 0.70 1.61 2.44 2.62 0.41 0.55 1.61 2.27 1.22 0.43 2.07 0.56 0.18 0.79 0.95 1.16 0.42 0.77 0.65 0.34 0.80 0.92 1.68 0.73 0.68

0.79 2.46 1.28 0.80 1.69 2.80 0.95 0.99 0.77 1.71 0.95 0.82 0.32 0.44 0.54 1.19 2.11 2.72 2.62 0.46 0.83 1.61 2.20 1.22 0.50 2.07 0.87 0.27 0.75 0.95 1.37 0.60 0.70 0.91 0.18 1.88 1.24 1.73 0.85 0.71

NA 1.70 0.88 NA 1.46 1.26 0.00 0.64 0.55 1.43 1.88 NA 0.49 0.00 0.19 0.68 2.24 1.32 3.69 0.78 0.55 1.46 1.75 0.79 0.21 2.66 0.50 0.54 0.74 1.02 0.35 0.59 0.90 1.12 0.47 1.44 0.45 1.62 0.75 NA

1.36 3.81 2.07 1.84 2.69 5.15 2.53 2.39 1.11 3.18 3.02 2.20 1.30 0.90 0.69 1.50 2.19 4.05 2.55 1.82 1.10 1.54 2.35 2.70 0.51 3.38 1.37 0.00 1.95 1.58 2.72 1.64 1.59 1.49 0.68 2.72 1.32 4.74 2.00 2.63

1.36 4.55 2.07 3.21 2.76 7.02 2.53 4.29 3.04 3.18 3.02 2.20 0.00 0.80 0.60 3.97 2.72 5.53 2.55 2.17 1.64 1.54 1.85 2.70 0.58 3.38 3.73 0.00 3.80 1.58 3.21 2.04 2.53 3.11 0.71 6.56 1.70 5.05 2.50 2.95

164 203 267 186 432 712 227 690 378 133 160 92 114 115 597 1898 355 361 37 48 617 281 198 206 256 199 186 40 572 105 343 210 268 163 184 576 243 448 253 79

Neshoba Newton Noxubee Oktibbeha Panola Pearl River Perry Pike Pontotoc Prentiss Quitman Rankin

10694 8221 4470 15945 12232 18078 4420 14792 10097 9821 3565 42089

76 94 75 100 215 105 64 154 106 83 39 301

0.71 1.14 1.68 0.63 1.76 0.58 1.45 1.04 1.05 0.85 1.09 0.72

0.76 1.22 1.96 1.16 1.88 0.52 1.45 0.92 1.17 0.88 1.02 1.18

0.56 1.78 2.00 0.73 2.42 0.99 2.99 0.94 1.48 1.29 0.85 0.62

1.53 2.24 3.07 1.09 2.93 1.43 3.11 2.72 3.71 2.23 1.92 2.31

1.30 2.49 3.91 2.55 3.19 1.49 3.11 2.32 4.18 2.45 2.21 4.20

199 210 256 236 543 226 147 331 313 166 119 903

117

Still Living Without the Basics Mississippi (MS)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Scott Sharkey Simpson

10183 2163 10076

201 62 153

1.97 2.87 1.52

2.64 2.87 1.65

2.39 3.16 2.23

3.85 7.02 2.90

5.27 7.02 3.17

511 194 345

Smith Stone Sunflower Tallahatchie Tate Tippah Tishomingo Tunica Union Walthall Warren Washington Wayne Webster Wilkinson Winston Yalobusha Yazoo

6046 4747 9637 5263 8850 8108 7917 3258 9786 5571 18756 22158 7857 3905 3578 7578 5260 9178

85 65 178 112 135 65 53 53 68 123 69 149 80 39 55 96 69 153

1.41 1.37 1.85 2.13 1.53 0.80 0.67 1.63 0.69 2.21 0.37 0.67 1.02 1.00 1.54 1.27 1.31 1.67

1.41 1.74 1.80 2.15 1.98 1.03 0.67 1.29 0.66 2.21 0.34 1.09 1.34 1.00 1.54 1.56 1.63 1.39

0.50 NA 0.99 2.66 1.57 0.93 0.80 1.98 0.32 1.41 0.00 0.23 1.22 0.44 3.37 1.32 1.48 0.93

4.96 3.32 2.71 3.81 3.43 1.98 1.09 3.23 0.99 3.84 0.77 1.22 2.21 4.09 2.92 2.73 1.68 2.77

4.96 5.04 2.12 3.83 4.22 2.76 1.09 2.40 0.89 3.84 0.82 2.38 3.11 4.09 2.92 3.39 2.24 2.76

215 245 686 263 220 97 78 124 152 323 246 556 161 64 251 302 121 539

118

Still Living Without the Basics

MISSOURI (MO)

Ranking 2000 29

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 11923

Missouri (MO)

County/City

Total OHU

Adair Andrew Atchison Audrain Barry Barton Bates Benton Bollinger Boone Buchanan Butler Caldwell Callaway

9669 6273 2722 9844 13398 4895 6511 7420 4576 53094 33557 16718 3523 14416

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.54

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 43 49 6 197 145 13 70 79 56 203 114 114 28 61

OHULP 1990 14263

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.73

Rural OHULP 2000 6147

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.44 0.78 0.22 2.00 1.08 0.27 1.08 1.06 1.22 0.38 0.34 0.68 0.79 0.42

0.95 1.08 0.22 4.38 1.23 0.26 1.30 1.06 1.22 0.44 0.43 0.84 0.79 0.60

0.54 1.60 NA 0.23 0.81 NA 0.97 0.38 0.82 0.10 0.13 1.05 0.72 0.97

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.94

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

9717

1.65

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.63 0.71 0.00 8.89 3.01 0.28 3.51 3.74 0.83 0.57 0.58 1.44 1.52 2.88

3.02 1.22 0.00 22.94 3.87 0.46 4.22 3.74 0.83 1.41 0.00 2.22 1.52 5.38

123 123 9 919 250 43 191 154 94 500 312 199 61 117

119

Still Living Without the Basics Missouri (MO)

County/City Camden Cape Girardeau Carroll Carter Cass Cedar Chariton Christian Clark Clay Clinton Cole Cooper Crawford Dade Dallas Daviess DeKalb Dent Douglas Dunklin Franklin Gasconade Gentry Greene Grundy Harrison Henry Hickory Holt Howard Howell Iron Jackson Jasper Jefferson Johnson Knox Laclede Lafayette Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Linn Livingston McDonald Macon Madison Maries Marion Mercer Miller

120

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

15779 26980 4169 2378 30168 5685 3469 20425 2966 72558 7152 27040 5932 8858 3202 6030 3178 3528 5982 5201 13411 34945 6171 2747 97859 4382 3658 9133 3911 2237 3836 14762 4197 266294 41412

82 109 62 28 63 45 25 48 30 214 51 81 48 74 30 65 25 20 79 100 94 165 80 28 270 25 54 46 30 23 24 146 73 1121 171

0.52 0.40 1.49 1.18 0.21 0.79 0.72 0.24 1.01 0.29 0.71 0.30 0.81 0.84 0.94 1.08 0.79 0.57 1.32 1.92 0.70 0.47 1.30 1.02 0.28 0.57 1.48 0.50 0.77 1.03 0.63 0.99 1.74 0.42 0.41

0.54 0.74 1.76 1.18 0.21 1.11 0.72 0.37 1.01 0.26 0.71 0.28 1.25 0.85 0.94 1.34 0.79 0.67 1.92 2.52 0.47 0.57 1.57 1.02 0.18 1.09 2.17 0.92 0.77 1.03 0.87 1.13 2.03 0.45 0.35

0.85 0.32 0.52 NA 0.17 0.71 1.62 NA 0.79 0.21 0.53 0.22 1.13 1.26 1.12 2.68 0.51 0.84 1.55 1.72 0.70 0.61 2.33 0.89 0.28 1.09 1.59 NA 0.58 1.32 0.88 0.55 0.71 0.27 0.40

0.25 0.62 2.65 2.71 1.23 1.75 3.69 0.93 2.68 0.79 2.80 0.97 1.34 1.84 1.89 1.60 1.43 1.72 3.66 3.73 1.15 1.41 4.52 2.44 0.63 1.87 2.07 1.10 2.89 1.66 0.45 2.04 4.94 1.01 0.66

0.00 2.12 5.10 2.71 0.75 2.94 3.69 2.00 2.68 0.00 3.95 0.49 2.54 2.35 1.89 2.27 1.43 2.23 4.85 5.36 0.88 2.27 5.48 2.44 1.11 5.51 3.17 2.78 2.89 1.66 0.84 2.62 6.72 1.97 0.92

206 216 185 39 164 89 38 71 97 502 118 117 94 149 37 182 55 45 136 156 192 321 104 60 495 87 153 114 68 33 47 363 132 2793 315

71499 17410 1791 12760 12569 13568 3956 13851 5697 5736 8113 6501 4711 3519 11066

201 92 23 101 40 88 52 97 22 15 147 91 51 53 37

0.28 0.53 1.28 0.79 0.32 0.65 1.31 0.70 0.39 0.26 1.81 1.40 1.08 1.51 0.33

0.28 0.70 1.28 1.12 0.28 0.93 1.31 0.82 0.40 0.73 1.81 1.96 1.32 1.51 0.23

0.41 0.51 0.81 0.61 0.41 0.25 0.60 0.95 NA NA 0.34 0.92 0.77 1.25 NA

0.78 2.20 2.99 2.17 0.47 1.19 4.35 1.32 1.40 0.98 3.91 5.12 1.73 3.73 1.09

1.09 3.75 2.99 3.90 0.68 2.14 4.35 1.90 0.99 3.69 3.91 8.32 2.78 3.73 0.00

431 226 43 137 108 226 288 181 76 41 378 293 98 85 97

1600 9284

29 21

1.81 0.23

1.81 0.16

1.69 NA

1.79 0.53

1.79 0.78

65 70

Still Living Without the Basics Missouri (MO)

County/City Mississippi Moniteau Monroe Montgomery Morgan New Madrid Newton Nodaway Oregon Osage Ozark Pemiscot Perry Pettis Phelps Pike Platte Polk Pulaski Putnam Ralls Randolph Ray Reynolds Ripley St. Charles St. Clair Ste. Genevieve St. Francois St. Louis Saline Schuyler Scotland Scott Shannon Shelby Stoddard Stone Sullivan Taney Texas Vernon Warren WA Wayne Webster Worth Wright St. Louis City

Total OHU 5383 5259 3656 4775 7850 7824 20140 8138 4263 4922 3950 7855 6904 15568 15683 6451 29278 9917 13433 2228 3736 9199 8743 2721 5416 101663 4040 6586 20793 404312 9015 1725 1902 15626 3319 2745 12064 11822 2925 16158 9378 7966 9185 8406 5551 11073 1009 7081 147076

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 17 39 60 68 69 56 147 27 91 34 97 64 34 149 102 142 96 86 62 14 24 36 43 50 102 248 72 53 100 1070 70 13 23 77 110 27 56 45 28 82 172 75 80 144 78 300 6 69 1249

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.32 0.74 1.64 1.42 0.88 0.72 0.73 0.33 2.13 0.69 2.46 0.81 0.49 0.96 0.65 2.20 0.33 0.87 0.46 0.63 0.64 0.39 0.49 1.84 1.88 0.24 1.78 0.80 0.48 0.26 0.78 0.75 1.21 0.49 3.31 0.98 0.46 0.38 0.96 0.51 1.83 0.94 0.87 1.71 1.41 2.71 0.59 0.97 0.85

0.14 1.34 1.64 1.42 0.88 0.55 1.01 0.42 2.57 0.69 2.46 1.13 0.73 1.07 0.87 3.75 0.47 1.17 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 0.71 1.84 1.88 0.14 1.78 1.08 0.69 0.20 0.99 0.75 1.21 0.72 3.31 0.98 0.42 0.38 0.96 0.64 1.85 1.54 0.99 2.01 1.41 3.46 0.59 1.15 0.00

0.35 0.84 1.11 2.41 1.18 1.55 0.42 0.37 1.70 2.23 2.41 1.55 NA 0.87 NA 1.52 0.31 0.63 1.55 NA 1.23 0.72 0.71 1.32 1.85 0.24 1.56 1.06 0.85 0.24 0.61 1.69 1.31 0.41 NA NA 0.82 0.36 0.73 0.61 1.48 1.29 1.17 1.49 1.98 2.44 0.00 0.67 0.50

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.07 2.32 5.83 4.17 1.47 2.04 2.50 1.19 5.27 2.05 5.29 1.19 1.57 1.46 1.41 6.17 1.15 1.93 2.07 0.00 3.10 1.20 0.88 4.63 3.47 1.61 3.19 3.92 1.64 0.65 1.35 0.00 2.38 1.09 6.69 3.45 1.40 1.54 1.14 0.78 4.20 3.35 1.18 3.19 3.70 11.68 1.22 2.41 1.51

0.27 5.08 5.83 4.17 1.47 2.14 3.29 1.69 6.62 2.05 5.29 2.31 1.73 1.27 2.81 12.18 3.51 3.17 3.05 0.00 3.13 3.47 1.70 4.63 3.47 0.00 3.19 5.34 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 1.66 6.69 3.45 1.02 1.54 1.14 0.24 4.22 6.14 0.35 3.73 3.70 14.91 1.22 2.80 0.00

27 146 247 138 150 97 271 73 223 76 134 166 73 289 248 522 180 231 142 27 62 106 84 86 192 603 151 84 210 2639 168 25 34 172 236 39 131 69 60 213 379 226 176 243 132 1364 11 150 3049

121

Still Living Without the Basics

MONTANA (MT)

Ranking 2000 13

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 2776

Montana (MT)

County

Total OHU

Beaverhead Big Horn Blaine Broadwater Carbon Carter Cascade Chouteau Custer Daniels Dawson Deer Lodge

3684 3924 2501 1752 4065 543 32547 2226 4768 892 3625 3995

122

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.77

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 50 81 39 10 31 10 221 2 33 0 10 10

OHULP 1990 2357

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.77

Rural OHULP 2000 1873

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 1.36 2.06 1.56 0.57 0.76 1.84 0.68 0.09 0.69 0.00 0.28 0.25

0.95 2.64 1.56 0.57 0.76 1.84 0.91 0.09 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.44

2.79 1.83 2.55 0.00 1.04 4.89 0.45 NA NA 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.18

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1678

1.22

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.92 3.11 3.06 4.85 1.06 0.00 1.11 0.00 2.12 0.00 1.83 0.00

0.68 3.81 3.06 4.85 1.06 0.00 1.99 0.00 2.47 0.00 1.23 0.00

70 232 81 21 54 11 324 NA 64 0 36 20

Still Living Without the Basics Montana (MT)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Fallon Fergus Flathead Gallatin Garfield Glacier Golden Valley Granite Hill Jefferson Judith Basin Lake Lewis and Clark Liberty Lincoln McCone Madison Meagher Mineral Missoula Musselshell Park Petroleum Phillips Pondera Powder River Powell Prairie Ravalli Richland Roosevelt Rosebud Sanders Sheridan Silver Bow Stillwater

1140 4860 29588 26323 532 4304 365 1200 6457 3747 951 10192 22850 833 7764 810 2956 803 1584 38439 1878 6828 211 1848 2410 737 2422 537 14289 3878 3581 3307 4273 1741 14432 3234

4 17 301 113 7 53 4 31 25 48 7 80 150 6 277 5 8 11 35 259 32 44 0 5 16 11 9 8 96 22 11 41 93 13 96 27

0.35 0.35 1.02 0.43 1.32 1.23 1.10 2.58 0.39 1.28 0.74 0.78 0.66 0.72 3.57 0.62 0.27 1.37 2.21 0.67 1.70 0.64 0.00 0.27 0.66 1.49 0.37 1.49 0.67 0.57 0.31 1.24 2.18 0.75 0.67 0.83

0.35 0.53 1.69 0.39 1.32 2.73 1.10 2.58 0.89 1.28 0.74 0.95 1.48 0.72 4.23 0.62 0.27 1.37 2.21 1.21 1.70 1.07 0.00 0.27 0.88 1.49 1.06 1.49 0.84 0.36 0.70 1.24 2.18 0.75 0.74 0.83

0.00 NA 0.84 NA 2.98 1.18 NA NA 0.60 NA NA 0.55 1.16 NA 1.06 2.14 0.00 NA 1.36 0.27 1.07 NA 0.00 NA NA NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 2.56 1.51 1.88 0.18 NA

1.53 0.73 3.25 0.90 4.67 4.43 3.64 3.91 0.17 0.82 1.23 1.99 1.68 1.49 7.98 1.40 0.52 2.92 7.20 1.90 4.57 0.88 0.00 1.58 1.69 5.83 0.65 2.38 1.59 0.00 0.51 2.93 3.59 3.08 2.39 2.63

1.53 1.74 7.10 0.50 4.67 10.77 3.64 3.91 0.56 0.82 1.23 2.58 5.50 1.49 10.17 1.40 0.52 2.92 7.20 4.95 4.57 2.24 0.00 1.58 3.11 5.83 1.60 2.38 2.17 0.00 1.58 2.93 3.59 3.08 0.00 2.63

NA 28 588 303 12 112 10 52 43 74 21 145 293 10 545 8 15 13 81 493 48 104 0 NA 29 20 39 9 207 80 17 124 148 17 141 32

Sweet Grass Teton Toole Treasure Valley Wheatland Wibaux Yellowstone

1476 2538 1962 357 3150 853 421 52084

13 49 7 6 17 4 0 218

0.88 1.93 0.36 1.68 0.54 0.47 0.00 0.42

0.88 1.93 0.47 1.68 0.23 0.47 0.00 0.73

NA 0.97 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27

2.04 4.48 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06

2.04 4.48 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17

25 140 19 14 51 NA 0 319

123

Still Living Without the Basics

NEBRASKA (NE)

Ranking 2000 52

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 2408

Nebraska (NE)

County Adams Antelope Arthur Banner Blaine Boone Box Butte Boyd Brown Buffalo Burt

124

Total OHU 12141 2953 185 311 238 2454 4780 1014 1530 15930 3155

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.36

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 29 8 2 2 5 10 26 9 6 37 24

OHULP 1990 2253

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.37

Rural OHULP 2000 985

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.24 0.36 NA 0.27 0.27 NA 1.08 1.08 NA 0.64 0.64 NA 2.10 2.10 NA 0.41 0.41 NA 0.54 1.20 0.64 0.89 0.89 NA 0.39 0.39 NA 0.23 0.20 NA 0.76 0.76 1.63

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.49

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 0.32 1.38 0.00 0.00 6.82 0.68 1.82 4.03 1.18 0.11 0.00

Rural OHULP 1990 1189

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 2.03 1.38 0.00 0.00 6.82 0.68 3.17 4.03 1.18 0.45 0.00

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990 0.60

Total population in OHULP 85 8 NA NA NA 17 56 17 8 102 35

Still Living Without the Basics Nebraska (NE)

County Butler Cass Cedar Chase Cherry Cheyenne Clay Colfax Cuming Custer Dakota Dawes Dawson Deuel Dixon Dodge Douglas Dundy Fillmore Franklin Frontier Furnas Gage Garden Garfield Gosper Grant Greeley Hall Hamilton Harlan Hayes Hitchcock Holt Hooker Howard Jefferson Johnson

Total OHU 3426 9161 3623 1662 2508 4071 2756 3682 3945 4826 7095 3512 8824 908 2413 14433 182194 961 2689 1485 1192 2278 9316 1020 813 863 292 1077 20356 3503 1597 430 1287 4608 335 2546 3527 1887

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 27 40 20 5 13 18 15 10 18 21 24 15 45 8 17 39 648 8 0 7 5 11 23 8 4 0 3 0 90 7 9 11 10 19 0 8 20 12

Kearney Keith Keya Paha Kimball Knox Lancaster Lincoln Logan Loup McPherson Madison Merrick Morrill Nance Nemaha

2643 3707 409 1727 3811 99187 14076 316 289 202 13436 3209 2138 1577 3047

18 29 5 6 23 303 30 0 0 0 42 16 15 7 2

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.79 0.81 0.97 0.44 0.51 NA 0.55 0.55 0.80 0.30 0.30 NA 0.52 0.30 0.91 0.44 1.16 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.59 0.27 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.66 0.44 0.64 0.61 0.34 0.50 NA 0.43 1.05 0.78 0.51 0.59 NA 0.88 0.88 NA 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.27 0.30 0.29 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 NA 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.78 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.78 0.78 NA 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.76 0.59 0.20 0.38 0.54 0.56 0.56 1.49 2.56 2.56 5.07 0.78 0.78 1.09 0.41 0.26 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 NA 0.57 1.23 0.62 0.64 0.64 NA 0.68 0.78 1.22 0.35 0.60 0.31 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.50 0.70 0.44 0.07

1.21 0.57 1.22 0.32 0.60 0.32 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.53 0.70 0.44 0.13

NA 0.52 NA 1.36 1.08 0.21 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 NA NA NA 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 2.05 0.41 0.57 0.00 2.74 2.00 1.48 0.26 0.83 0.70 1.06 0.28 1.79 0.00 3.08 0.48 1.07 0.00 0.00 2.62 1.95 1.61 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.17 0.58 2.74 1.18 0.31 0.00 1.23 0.00 2.00

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.06 0.00 0.57 0.00 2.05 4.55 1.48 0.46 1.29 1.03 6.06 1.07 1.01 0.00 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.62 1.95 1.61 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.11 0.58 2.74 1.18 0.45 0.00 1.23 0.00 2.00

0.00 0.00 2.91 0.00 1.77 0.66 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 2.91 0.00 1.77 1.32 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00

Total population in OHULP 44 58 30 16 27 32 35 23 52 32 80 52 170 10 33 49 1452 9 0 7 NA 22 41 13 NA 0 NA 0 248 9 17 14 9 26 0 22 44 26 46 47 22 14 50 748 62 0 0 0 105 28 35 16 NA

125

Still Living Without the Basics Nebraska (NE)

County

Total OHU

Nuckolls Otoe Pawnee Perkins Phelps Pierce Platte Polk Red Willow Richardson Rock Saline Sarpy Saunders Scotts Bluff Seward Sheridan Sherman Sioux Stanton Thayer Thomas Thurston Valley Washington Wayne Webster Wheeler York

2218 6060 1339 1275 3844 2979 12076 2259 4710 3993 763 5188 43426 7498 14887 6013 2549 1394 605 2297 2541 325 2255 1965 6940 3437 1708 352 5722

126

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 11 22 14 0 12 18 38 8 4 14 2 41 96 33 69 20 8 12 6 19 18 0 14 0 15 10 5 0 7

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.50 0.36 1.05 0.00 0.31 0.60 0.31 0.35 0.08 0.35 0.26 0.79 0.22 0.44 0.46 0.33 0.31 0.86 0.99 0.83 0.71 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.12

0.50 0.53 1.05 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.56 0.35 0.29 0.66 0.26 0.54 0.22 0.56 0.53 0.54 0.31 0.86 0.99 1.08 0.71 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.36 0.50 0.29 0.00 0.28

NA 0.28 1.66 0.00 0.46 NA 0.47 0.86 NA 0.43 NA 1.36 0.14 NA 0.55 0.31 0.00 1.84 NA 1.47 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 0.36 NA NA 0.00 0.30

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.13 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.40 0.00 0.91 0.00 2.00 1.09 0.76 0.90 0.19 1.30 3.96 0.00 2.60 4.14 0.00 0.84 0.00 2.05 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.43

1.13 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 1.40 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.08 0.57 0.30 1.30 3.96 0.00 3.11 4.14 0.00 0.84 0.00 5.45 2.94 0.00 0.00 1.23

13 61 27 0 25 52 63 13 NA 23 NA 88 286 75 142 41 16 18 19 25 26 0 32 0 21 19 12 0 10

Still Living Without the Basics

NEVADA (NV)

Ranking 2000 39

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Churchill Clark Douglas Elko Esmeralda Eureka Humboldt Lander Lincoln

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

3638

Nevada (NV)

County/City

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 8912 512253 16401 15638 455 666 5733 2093 1540

OHULP 1990

0.48

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 33 2178 58 162 7 16 34 0 5

1893

Percent of OHULP 1990

Rural OHULP 2000

0.41

471

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.37 0.43 0.35 1.04 1.54 2.40 0.59 0.00 0.32

1.09 0.43 0.33 1.09 1.54 2.40 0.93 0.00 0.32

NA 0.37 0.00 1.44 NA NA NA 0.00 0.00

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.76

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

483

0.96

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 0.99 2.80 3.45 9.09 6.25 2.40 0.00 0.65

0.00 1.71 2.07 5.40 9.09 6.25 2.44 0.00 0.65

69 5809 254 410 15 39 46 0 7

127

Still Living Without the Basics Nevada (NV)

County/City

Total OHU

Lyon Mineral Nye Pershing Storey Washoe White Pine Carson City

13007 2197 13309 1962 1462 132084 3282 20171

128

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 93 8 134 28 7 844 4 27

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.71 0.36 1.01 1.43 0.48 0.64 0.12 0.13

1.22 1.21 1.06 1.43 0.50 0.44 0.00 0.23

0.68 0.00 0.44 3.42 3.74 0.37 0.00 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.10 1.16 3.35 1.79 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00

4.21 2.40 1.41 1.79 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00

213 14 346 57 17 2132 8 62

Still Living Without the Basics

NEW HAMPSHIRE (NH)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

41

County Belknap Carroll Cheshire Coos Grafton Hillsborough Merrimack Rockingham Strafford Sullivan

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

2254

Total OHU 22459 18351 28299 13961 31598 144455 51843 104529 42581 16530

0.47

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 70 160 211 84 217 538 287 306 280 101

OHULP 1990 2363

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.57

Rural OHULP 2000 1296

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.31 0.87 0.75 0.60 0.69 0.37 0.55 0.29 0.66 0.61

0.33 0.87 1.02 0.81 0.96 0.56 0.79 0.28 0.70 0.82

0.32 0.52 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.19 0.54 0.27 0.63 0.35

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.69

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1746

0.90

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.68 2.63 2.05 0.61 2.87 0.70 2.19 1.74 1.22 1.64

0.44 2.63 4.09 1.08 5.11 1.58 4.55 1.74 2.85 4.38

181 315 370 152 368 1256 527 737 547 218

129

Still Living Without the Basics

NEW JERSEY (NJ)

Ranking 2000 30

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

16530

0.54

County

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic

95024 330817 154371 185744 42148 49143 283736 90717 230546 43678 125807 265815 224236 169711 200402 163856

New Jersey (NJ)

130

419 1483 321 1078 126 235 2651 244 2758 155 589 1023 800 569 502 1436

OHULP 1990 12914

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.46

Rural OHULP 2000 488

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.44 0.45 0.21 0.58 0.30 0.48 0.93 0.27 1.20 0.35 0.47 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.25 0.88

0.29 1.53 0.54 0.36 0.58 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.77 0.35 0.16 0.16 0.33

0.26 0.34 0.24 0.31 0.15 0.32 0.74 0.29 0.84 0.45 0.35 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.16 0.41

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.30

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

973

0.35

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.08 1.29 0.57 2.30 0.73 0.70 2.00 1.22 2.24 0.81 1.75 0.85 1.29 0.79 0.44 2.57

1.59 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00

1140 3905 788 3295 339 600 6891 594 7050 317 1697 3200 2183 1532 1418 4517

Still Living Without the Basics New Jersey (NJ)

County

Total OHU

Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren

24295 108984 50831 186124 38660

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 107 351 108 1465 110

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.44 0.32 0.21 0.79 0.28

0.42 0.36 0.12 0.00 0.29

0.47 0.13 0.07 0.28 0.37

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.20 1.66 1.26 2.65 0.86

0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57

216 949 207 4040 212

131

Still Living Without the Basics

NEW MEXICO (NM)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

3

11905

New Mexico (NM)

County Bernalillo Catron Chaves Cibola Colfax Curry De Baca Dona Ana Eddy Grant Guadalupe Harding

132

Total OHU 220936 1584 22561 8327 5821 16766 922 59556 19379 12146 1655 371

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 1.76

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 1051 75 128 454 23 74 4 524 146 166 16 8

OHULP 1990 11898

Percent of OHULP 1990 2.19

Rural OHULP 2000 9095

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.48 4.73 0.57 5.45 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.88 0.75 1.37 0.97 2.16

3.31 4.73 0.70 9.53 0.34 1.00 0.43 1.17 1.05 2.47 1.58 2.16

0.46 1.65 0.41 7.13 0.64 0.71 NA 0.86 0.64 1.18 2.15 0.00

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 5.73

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

10173

7.60

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.12 11.90 1.56 10.59 0.71 1.33 2.29 2.12 2.21 3.68 1.01 7.58

14.99 11.90 1.66 17.06 1.80 6.45 2.29 2.93 4.32 7.89 0.52 7.58

2774 143 324 1361 64 175 8 1903 375 307 22 15

Still Living Without the Basics New Mexico (NM)

County

Total OHU

Hidalgo Lea Lincoln Los Alamos Luna McKinley Mora Otero Quay Rio Arriba Roosevelt Sandoval San Juan San Miguel Santa Fe Sierra Socorro Taos Torrance Union Valencia

2152 19699 8202 7497 9397 21476 2017 22984 4201 15044 6639 31411 37711 11134 52482 6113 6675 12675 6024 1733 22681

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 44 86 72 11 143 3917 109 196 68 471 27 594 1686 257 361 84 177 578 137 0 218

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent Rural population OHULP above 65 of OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 2.04 0.44 0.88 0.15 1.52 18.24 5.40 0.85 1.62 3.13 0.41 1.89 4.47 2.31 0.69 1.37 2.65 4.56 2.27 0.00 0.96

2.76 0.34 1.43 0.00 1.83 30.21 5.40 1.00 1.91 4.72 0.39 7.36 10.77 4.61 1.66 3.05 4.35 6.15 2.39 0.00 1.67

1.20 0.35 0.50 0.00 1.17 24.10 6.44 0.75 1.81 2.24 0.00 1.51 5.42 1.26 0.24 0.26 1.75 2.23 2.41 0.00 0.18

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.58 1.30 1.94 0.00 3.04 31.31 11.25 1.52 3.20 6.90 0.39 11.36 13.54 4.52 1.91 3.50 5.64 8.05 2.83 0.00 2.22

4.72 1.07 2.82 0.00 4.41 42.50 11.25 1.00 7.89 10.80 1.47 21.76 25.26 10.66 6.35 6.93 10.65 12.53 2.99 0.00 6.79

70 178 110 31 399 12666 248 515 160 1177 117 1853 5015 531 645 134 554 1064 316 0 587

133

Still Living Without the Basics

NEW YORK (NY)

Ranking 2000 11

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 58418

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.83

New York (NY)

50428

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.76

Rural OHULP 2000 5354

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Albany Allegany Bronx Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton

120512 18009 463212 80749 32023 30558 54515 35049 19926 29423

134

OHULP 1990

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 537 158 7440 359 372 131 291 145 123 212

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.45 0.88 1.61 0.44 1.16 0.43 0.53 0.41 0.62 0.72

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

0.40 0.99 0.00 0.52 1.86 0.62 0.85 0.63 0.75 0.76

0.34 0.69 1.08 0.36 1.16 0.50 0.20 0.40 0.57 0.62

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.61

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.20 2.35 2.42 1.31 3.59 1.17 1.16 1.46 1.88 1.65

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

7750

0.78

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.85 2.65 0.00 2.72 6.57 1.91 2.44 4.24 2.49 1.63

1104 348 22340 660 1652 261 764 244 237 396

Still Living Without the Basics New York (NY)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Kings Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau New York Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Queens Rensselaer Richmond Rockland St. Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler

24796 18210 19270 99536 380873 15028 17931 21884 22770 18256 2362 25734 40068 880727 10040 22150 25368 286512 20038 447387 738644 87846 90496 181153 38370 114788 15363 45522 23291 32703 782664 59894 156341 92675 40506 78165 59684 11991 7374

74 113 115 381 1637 86 116 153 73 81 20 128 243 13114 80 76 107 1207 146 1605 11061 346 314 782 148 428 65 154 80 84 7628 351 710 430 461 212 195 94 39

0.30 0.62 0.60 0.38 0.43 0.57 0.65 0.70 0.32 0.44 0.85 0.50 0.61 1.49 0.80 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.73 0.36 1.50 0.39 0.35 0.43 0.39 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.97 0.59 0.45 0.46 1.14 0.27 0.33 0.78 0.53

0.26 0.57 0.52 0.38 0.43 0.61 0.77 0.96 0.56 0.58 0.85 0.70 0.64 0.00 0.92 0.38 0.47 0.19 1.06 0.41 0.00 0.27 0.49 0.37 0.47 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.21 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.96 1.53 0.54 0.55 0.85 0.66

0.24 1.77 0.77 0.23 0.30 0.29 0.57 0.96 0.42 0.68 1.30 0.60 0.66 1.23 1.19 0.31 0.39 0.44 0.46 0.31 1.50 0.28 0.42 0.28 0.17 0.27 0.47 0.24 0.39 0.00 0.68 0.54 0.42 0.60 0.60 0.36 0.26 0.74 NA

0.40 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.19 0.87 1.56 1.61 1.19 1.42 1.59 1.26 1.13 2.41 1.86 0.69 0.71 0.97 2.08 0.95 3.39 1.07 0.61 0.98 1.61 1.19 0.56 0.33 0.58 0.00 1.85 1.82 1.06 0.34 2.47 0.86 0.68 1.79 3.15

0.76 1.78 0.98 0.58 1.38 1.04 2.56 2.24 2.77 2.04 1.59 1.96 2.41 0.00 2.22 1.42 0.91 0.00 3.59 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.20 0.51 1.83 0.66 1.29 0.27 0.74 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 3.93 2.26 0.00 2.25 4.23

113 202 149 858 3735 170 215 275 220 175 31 255 587 37260 164 173 225 2720 503 4938 23740 808 593 1617 332 1094 117 357 156 203 23956 733 1909 1368 1525 442 407 144 101

Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming

12630 39071 469299 27661 19725 36420 67499 25726 22458 34908 337142 14906

53 307 1575 214 77 206 317 162 158 158 2178 42

0.42 0.79 0.34 0.77 0.39 0.57 0.47 0.63 0.70 0.45 0.65 0.28

0.69 1.19 0.34 0.65 0.38 0.52 0.38 0.94 0.89 0.50 0.06 0.44

0.53 0.46 0.33 0.55 0.44 0.45 0.54 0.38 0.47 0.88 0.32 0.20

0.83 1.98 0.71 0.85 2.22 1.57 1.07 3.99 1.76 1.92 1.44 0.51

1.94 3.66 1.09 0.52 1.35 2.43 1.26 5.40 3.19 2.86 0.00 0.88

168 993 5086 446 122 333 640 359 311 362 5857 85

135

Still Living Without the Basics New York (NY)

County Yates

136

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 9029

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 66

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 0.73

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

1.02

1.18

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 0.61

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.02

144

Still Living Without the Basics

NORTH CAROLINA (NC)

Ranking 2000

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

23

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

19295

0.62

33192

North Carolina (NC)

County Alamance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick Buncombe Burke Cabarrus Caldwell

Total OHU 51584 13137 4593 9204 10411 6532 18319 7743 12897 30438 85776 34528 49519 30768

Percent of OHULP 1990

OHULP 1990

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 223 62 23 103 99 27 208 192 116 188 272 166 138 161

1.32

Rural OHULP 2000 10564

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of Percent of OHULP population (as % of OHULP above 65 Rural years in (as % of OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.43 0.47 0.50 1.12 0.95 0.41 1.14 2.48 0.90 0.62 0.32 0.48 0.28 0.52

0.58 0.51 0.50 1.30 0.95 0.41 1.46 2.48 0.70 0.61 0.26 0.76 0.40 0.56

0.56 1.18 NA 1.21 1.77 0.51 1.60 1.98 0.68 0.36 0.54 0.99 0.58 0.53

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.85

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 0.80 0.46 1.82 1.74 0.78 2.08 2.71 5.75 2.49 1.22 0.54 0.69 0.00 1.12

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

Rural OHULP 1990 27743

2.26

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.19 0.56 1.82 1.93 0.78 2.08 4.20 5.75 2.60 1.56 1.47 1.13 0.00 1.22

468 99 26 217 161 40 574 411 252 357 517 358 302 335

137

Still Living Without the Basics North Carolina (NC) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Camden Carteret Caswell Catawba Chatham Cherokee Chowan Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland Currituck Dare Davidson Davie Duplin Durham Edgecombe Forsyth Franklin Gaston Gates Graham Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Henderson Hertford Hoke Hyde Iredell

2662 25204 8670 55533 19741 10336 5580 3847 37046 21308 34582 107358 6902 12690 58156 13750 18267 89015 20392 123851 17843 73936 3901 3354 16654 6696 168667 22122 33800 23100 37414 8953 11373 2185 47360

21 60 123 204 219 96 67 54 195 211 193 711 32 27 445 101 276 430 300 505 291 367 72 10 269 149 816 530 237 104 143 110 152 24 156

0.79 0.24 1.42 0.37 1.11 0.93 1.20 1.40 0.53 0.99 0.56 0.66 0.46 0.21 0.77 0.73 1.51 0.48 1.47 0.41 1.63 0.50 1.85 0.30 1.62 2.23 0.48 2.40 0.70 0.45 0.38 1.23 1.34 1.10 0.33

0.79 0.41 1.42 0.43 1.29 0.93 1.00 1.40 0.74 1.01 0.83 0.58 0.46 0.40 0.39 0.76 1.75 0.57 2.20 0.32 1.66 0.38 1.85 0.30 2.10 2.23 0.62 3.49 0.82 0.80 0.48 1.31 2.03 1.10 0.39

3.59 0.32 0.72 0.33 1.58 0.81 1.14 1.34 0.24 0.43 0.42 0.60 1.17 0.00 0.76 1.26 1.15 0.54 1.22 0.42 2.82 0.58 1.01 0.49 2.67 4.27 0.28 1.83 0.87 0.51 0.21 1.53 2.60 1.88 0.38

0.00 0.00 2.78 1.15 3.73 3.18 3.88 3.11 1.64 2.33 0.73 1.26 0.00 0.58 0.88 2.50 2.90 0.83 2.97 0.82 5.42 1.45 4.76 1.45 6.39 8.53 1.06 5.99 1.79 1.93 1.08 1.62 2.90 4.16 0.85

0.00 0.00 2.78 1.43 4.65 3.18 4.07 3.11 2.09 2.30 0.81 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 3.61 0.00 5.67 0.46 5.82 1.68 4.76 1.45 9.33 8.53 1.44 8.14 2.62 3.14 0.41 1.94 4.16 4.16 0.51

64 109 265 397 547 150 153 173 568 444 509 1787 104 44 804 170 643 1207 962 1261 653 868 158 9 641 427 2025 1143 602 177 402 308 456 42 300

Jackson Johnston Jones Lee Lenoir Lincoln McDowell Macon Madison Martin Mecklenburg Mitchell Montgomery Moore Nash New Hanover

13191 46595 4061 18466 23862 24041 16604 12828 8000 10020 273416 6551 9848 30713 33644 68183

129 236 40 75 229 96 115 50 120 152 1118 66 90 234 516 237

0.98 0.51 0.98 0.41 0.96 0.40 0.69 0.39 1.50 1.52 0.41 1.01 0.91 0.76 1.53 0.35

1.07 0.53 0.98 0.17 0.87 0.27 0.75 0.48 1.50 1.66 0.41 1.01 0.96 1.24 2.21 0.00

1.47 0.76 1.15 0.18 0.94 0.54 0.98 0.56 2.38 1.09 0.47 1.86 0.50 0.82 1.33 0.42

1.37 1.53 4.09 2.49 2.20 1.29 1.98 1.10 2.29 3.47 0.94 1.90 1.10 3.05 3.97 0.63

1.36 1.81 4.09 2.03 2.35 0.56 2.94 1.54 2.29 4.62 0.00 1.90 1.21 4.76 5.56 0.00

333 521 51 254 467 278 201 76 193 352 3200 111 217 548 1174 562

138

Still Living Without the Basics North Carolina (NC)

County

Total OHU

Northampton Onslow Orange Pamlico Pasquotank Pender Perquimans Person Pitt Polk Randolph Richmond Robeson Rockingham Rowan Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanly Stokes Surry Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union Vance Wake Warren Washington Watauga Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin Yancey

8691 48122 45863 5178 12907 16054 4645 14085 52539 7908 50659 17873 43677 36989 49940 25191 22273 13399 22223 17579 28408 5137 12320 1537 43390 16199 242040 7708 5367 16540 42612 26650 28613 14505 7472

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 177 213 297 43 73 69 51 166 382 51 276 130 341 225 181 165 237 140 98 173 259 73 32 34 162 217 839 139 63 94 264 112 243 49 46

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 2.04 0.44 0.65 0.83 0.57 0.43 1.10 1.18 0.73 0.64 0.54 0.73 0.78 0.61 0.36 0.65 1.06 1.04 0.44 0.98 0.91 1.42 0.26 2.21 0.37 1.34 0.35 1.80 1.17 0.57 0.62 0.42 0.85 0.34 0.62

2.18 0.65 0.71 0.83 0.57 0.44 1.10 1.56 1.27 0.58 0.59 1.10 0.81 0.64 0.38 0.64 1.20 1.04 0.45 1.23 0.76 1.42 0.33 2.21 0.49 1.69 0.56 1.80 1.37 0.68 0.48 0.44 0.91 0.31 0.62

1.42 0.66 0.35 1.50 0.51 0.68 1.27 1.79 0.87 0.91 1.16 0.34 0.97 0.39 0.43 0.45 1.23 1.87 0.46 1.22 1.59 0.49 0.24 1.15 0.40 1.15 0.35 2.03 0.00 1.03 0.55 0.81 0.29 0.25 0.36

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 4.91 0.71 2.82 2.91 1.80 1.58 2.91 2.76 1.36 2.13 1.45 1.20 1.25 1.32 0.80 2.13 2.95 1.64 1.73 4.05 1.83 4.52 0.48 4.89 0.76 2.77 0.99 4.73 0.62 0.39 1.30 0.66 1.58 0.79 1.75

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

5.60 1.89 4.46 2.91 2.87 1.63 2.91 3.68 3.26 2.35 2.19 2.30 1.43 2.00 0.39 2.59 3.27 1.57 2.72 4.77 1.51 4.52 0.00 4.89 1.17 4.76 1.95 4.73 0.00 0.48 1.84 0.92 1.38 0.83 1.75

330 378 560 129 137 133 145 404 983 150 595 238 781 546 487 393 527 256 185 429 523 129 64 67 451 602 2046 336 188 155 652 248 632 138 91

139

Still Living Without the Basics

NORTH DAKOTA (ND)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

45

1124

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.44

North Dakota (ND)

County Adams Barnes Benson Billings Bottineau Bowman Burke Burleigh Cass Cavalier

140

Total OHU 1121 4884 2328 366 2962 1358 1013 27670 51315 2017

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 8 37 22 6 16 2 6 47 213 10

OHULP 1990 1558

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.65

Rural OHULP 2000 675

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP population Percent of OHULP (as % of above 65 Rural (as % of years in OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.71 0.76 0.95 1.64 0.54 0.15 0.59 0.17 0.42 0.50

0.71 1.30 0.95 1.64 0.54 0.15 0.59 0.41 0.18 0.50

1.46 0.75 1.20 NA 1.36 0.00 NA 0.10 0.41 0.81

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.61

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1209

1.10

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.39 1.44 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.54 0.73 1.79

1.39 4.69 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.97 0.31 1.79

13 55 27 9 23 NA 15 74 332 12

Still Living Without the Basics North Dakota (ND)

County

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Dickey Divide Dunn Eddy Emmons Foster Golden Valley Grand Forks Grant Griggs Hettinger Kidder LaMoure Logan McHenry McIntosh McKenzie McLean Mercer Morton Mountrail Nelson Oliver Pembina Pierce Ramsey Ransom Renville Richland Rolette Sargent Sheridan Sioux Slope Stark Steele Stutsman Towner Traill

2283 1005 1378 1164 1786 1540 761 25435 1195 1178 1152 1158 1942 963 2526 1467 2151 3815 3346 9889 2560 1628 791 3535 1964 4957 2350 1085 6885 4556 1786 731 1095 313 8932 923 8954 1218 3341

9 8 9 0 2 4 2 96 9 2 4 7 19 12 36 9 16 18 11 51 20 2 10 4 12 20 15 4 44 37 9 7 31 3 27 5 37 4 15

0.39 0.80 0.65 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.75 0.17 0.35 0.60 0.98 1.25 1.43 0.61 0.74 0.47 0.33 0.52 0.78 0.12 1.26 0.11 0.61 0.40 0.64 0.37 0.64 0.81 0.50 0.96 2.83 0.96 0.30 0.54 0.41 0.33 0.45

0.39 0.80 0.65 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.75 0.17 0.35 0.60 0.98 1.25 1.43 0.61 0.74 0.47 0.50 0.78 0.78 0.12 1.26 0.11 1.69 0.68 0.64 0.37 0.50 0.81 0.50 0.96 2.83 0.96 0.80 0.54 1.21 0.33 0.45

0.84 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.41 NA 0.00 NA NA 0.87 1.95 1.54 NA 1.42 0.52 0.72 0.29 NA 0.00 NA NA NA 0.54 0.68 NA 0.66 NA NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 NA 0.54 0.00 NA

0.91 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 4.90 0.79 1.39 0.54 0.00 2.03 1.57 0.00 5.41 0.00 2.47 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.22 1.11 3.90 4.11 4.62 1.19 4.29 0.40 1.63 1.10

0.91 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 4.90 0.79 1.39 0.54 0.00 3.75 1.57 0.00 5.41 0.00 9.86 3.70 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.22 1.11 3.90 4.11 4.62 2.76 4.29 1.68 1.63 1.10

10 10 15 0 NA 19 NA 166 14 NA NA 9 38 17 61 16 45 38 31 98 30 NA 17 25 43 29 22 9 70 110 15 11 73 NA 47 NA 72 13 27

Walsh Ward Wells Williams

5029 23041 2215 8095

30 68 14 15

0.60 0.30 0.63 0.19

0.93 0.34 0.63 0.34

0.95 0.43 1.39 0.37

2.39 1.31 0.00 0.20

3.63 1.49 0.00 0.72

59 122 33 17

141

Still Living Without the Basics

OHIO (OH)

Ranking 2000 47

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

19407

Ohio (OH)

County

Total OHU

Adams Allen Ashland Ashtabula Athens Auglaize Belmont Brown Butler Carroll Champaign

10501 40646 19524 39397 22501 17376 28309 15555 123082 11126 14952

142

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

0.44

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 294 88 217 250 274 59 201 140 399 52 69

OHULP 1990 24394

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.60

Rural OHULP 2000 7355

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 2.80 0.22 1.11 0.63 1.22 0.34 0.71 0.90 0.32 0.47 0.46

3.07 0.15 1.90 1.00 2.35 0.50 1.21 0.99 0.50 0.57 0.57

3.92 0.20 0.68 0.84 1.09 0.33 0.58 1.65 0.31 0.68 1.37

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.79

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

14480

1.49

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

6.68 0.50 5.33 2.06 1.88 1.10 1.35 2.34 0.88 0.89 2.03

7.25 0.00 13.34 5.41 6.23 3.59 2.43 3.49 1.93 1.55 3.64

632 185 1276 816 470 100 485 315 817 111 127

Still Living Without the Basics Ohio (OH)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

County

Total OHU

Clark Clermont Clinton Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton Gallia Geauga Greene Guernsey Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Highland Hocking Holmes Huron Jackson Jefferson Knox Lake Lawrence Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison

56648 66013 15416 42973 14356 18957 571457 20419 15138 39674 31727 45425 11054 438778 15480 12060 31630 55312 16094 346790 27898 11963 6398 10935 15587 10843 11337 22307 12619 30417 19975 89700 24732 55609 17956 105836 182847 13672

190 192 101 167 99 74 2589 69 82 53 120 83 19 1552 57 120 185 166 184 1388 49 140 62 34 123 154 175 107 122 149 210 170 195 187 70 217 688 54

0.34 0.29 0.66 0.39 0.69 0.39 0.45 0.34 0.54 0.13 0.38 0.18 0.17 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.58 0.30 1.14 0.40 0.18 1.17 0.97 0.31 0.79 1.42 1.54 0.48 0.97 0.49 1.05 0.19 0.79 0.34 0.39 0.21 0.38 0.39

0.18 0.44 0.85 0.50 0.81 0.25 0.00 0.42 0.56 0.23 0.72 0.27 0.29 0.16 0.44 1.16 0.85 0.45 1.73 0.40 0.29 1.74 1.05 0.39 0.92 1.98 1.72 0.42 1.59 0.65 1.64 0.00 1.47 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.64 0.53

0.17 0.56 1.05 0.43 1.10 0.25 0.32 0.31 0.77 NA 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.52 0.93 0.52 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.20 1.00 0.59 0.21 1.68 1.69 2.47 0.20 0.71 0.32 1.13 0.16 1.24 0.35 0.59 0.16 0.46 0.58

1.01 0.87 2.10 0.77 2.75 0.29 1.11 1.35 2.00 0.13 1.32 0.53 0.72 0.93 1.77 2.67 3.01 0.92 1.52 1.08 0.94 4.61 2.03 1.63 2.60 3.83 5.60 1.67 2.68 1.11 2.67 0.74 1.54 1.25 1.99 0.66 0.80 2.19

0.33 0.82 2.17 1.32 4.65 1.56 0.00 2.03 2.47 0.00 1.35 2.04 2.02 0.00 3.42 3.23 5.07 4.15 3.23 2.63 1.83 9.06 1.63 1.38 3.31 6.40 6.29 2.52 5.10 1.64 5.69 0.00 2.69 4.42 3.61 0.32 1.24 5.12

348 521 176 323 274 180 6068 122 118 112 331 186 55 3091 87 229 918 348 620 3327 124 775 98 143 266 261 858 223 196 317 668 380 496 444 254 510 1425 101

Mahoning Marion Medina Meigs Mercer Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow Muskingum Noble Ottawa Paulding

102587 24578 54542 9234 14756 38437 6021 229229 5890 11499 32518 4546 16474 7773

442 102 224 144 72 66 157 693 147 102 221 121 58 55

0.43 0.42 0.41 1.56 0.49 0.17 2.61 0.30 2.50 0.89 0.68 2.66 0.35 0.71

0.40 0.62 0.93 1.78 0.63 0.12 2.67 0.36 3.11 1.01 1.01 3.36 0.51 0.87

0.25 NA 0.44 2.70 0.47 0.15 4.60 0.19 3.03 0.23 0.70 1.77 0.52 0.37

1.07 0.26 2.69 4.08 1.70 0.67 4.68 0.85 5.62 3.64 1.11 8.77 1.73 5.20

0.88 1.48 8.76 4.58 3.49 0.00 4.75 0.00 6.99 4.51 2.74 11.62 3.90 6.40

1173 281 1028 287 148 126 600 1627 306 511 415 368 99 92

143

Still Living Without the Basics Ohio (OH)

County

Total OHU

Perry Pickaway Pike Portage Preble Putnam Richland Ross Sandusky Scioto Seneca Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull Tuscarawas Union Van Wert Vinton Warren Washington Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot

12500 17599 10444 56449 16001 12200 49534 27136 23717 30871 22292 17636 148316 217788 89020 35653 14346 11587 4892 55966 25137 40445 15105 45172 8882

144

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 83 73 148 188 75 57 279 277 31 263 113 44 480 697 310 119 69 68 156 131 184 350 50 90 29

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.66 0.41 1.42 0.33 0.47 0.47 0.56 1.02 0.13 0.85 0.51 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.33 0.48 0.59 3.19 0.23 0.73 0.87 0.33 0.20 0.33

0.83 0.36 1.84 0.34 0.44 0.49 0.90 1.29 0.27 1.18 0.43 0.26 0.28 0.02 0.64 0.31 0.53 0.81 3.37 0.52 1.05 1.39 0.22 0.37 0.08

0.38 0.61 1.53 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.31 1.30 0.00 0.63 0.42 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.46 0.57 0.68 3.31 0.41 0.65 0.44 NA 0.14 0.22

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.69 2.72 5.17 0.20 3.75 2.74 2.56 3.52 0.00 1.36 2.05 0.68 0.98 0.93 1.00 0.31 2.21 1.88 5.74 0.19 2.38 4.90 0.51 0.55 2.24

1.87 3.05 6.07 0.46 3.97 3.28 9.59 4.68 0.00 1.95 2.13 0.00 1.77 0.00 3.12 0.61 4.42 2.55 5.94 1.06 4.13 10.97 0.87 0.86 0.00

162 191 441 435 183 112 787 516 68 417 268 101 1096 1461 886 209 123 156 284 243 413 1652 145 156 46

Still Living Without the Basics

OKLAHOMA (OK)

Ranking 2000 27

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 7546

Oklahoma (OK)

County Adair Alfalfa Atoka Beaver Beckham Blaine Bryan Caddo Canadian Carter

Total OHU 7471 2199 4964 2245 7356 4159 14422 10957 31484 17992

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.56

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 130 8 67 4 29 21 92 68 100 93

OHULP 1990 7145

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.59

Rural OHULP 2000 3883

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 1.74 0.36 1.35 0.18 0.39 0.50 0.64 0.62 0.32 0.52

2.09 0.36 1.61 0.18 0.89 0.41 0.81 0.68 0.75 0.65

0.79 NA 0.56 NA 0.58 NA 0.36 0.19 0.32 0.30

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.87

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

4741

1.28

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.58 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.63 0.62 1.47 1.42 0.71 1.22

5.89 0.00 2.50 0.00 4.62 0.90 2.01 1.44 2.70 1.75

269 12 134 9 26 46 183 160 243 206

145

Still Living Without the Basics Oklahoma (OK)

County

Total OHU

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

Cherokee Choctaw Cimarron Cleveland Coal Comanche Cotton Craig Creek Custer Delaware Dewey Ellis Garfield Garvin Grady Grant Greer Harmon Harper Haskell Hughes Jackson Jefferson Johnston Kay Kingfisher Kiowa Latimer Le Flore Lincoln Logan Love McClain McCurtain McIntosh Major Marshall Mayes

16175 6220 1257 79186 2373 39808 2614 5620 25289 10136 14838 1962 1769 23175 10865 17341 2089 2237 1266 1509 4624 5319 10590 2716 4057 19157 5247 4208 3951 17861 12178 12389 3442 10331 13216 8085 3046 5371 14823

203 71 8 288 33 200 20 35 149 56 160 4 13 64 85 51 4 22 6 8 79 62 30 18 54 64 13 39 33 121 81 75 15 50 79 134 6 39 128

1.26 1.14 0.64 0.36 1.39 0.50 0.77 0.62 0.59 0.55 1.08 0.20 0.73 0.28 0.78 0.29 0.19 0.98 0.47 0.53 1.71 1.17 0.28 0.66 1.33 0.33 0.25 0.93 0.84 0.68 0.67 0.61 0.44 0.48 0.60 1.66 0.20 0.73 0.86

1.78 1.47 0.64 0.62 1.39 0.74 0.91 0.79 0.87 0.55 1.32 0.20 0.73 0.44 1.17 0.37 0.19 2.11 0.47 0.53 2.08 1.67 0.44 0.66 1.25 0.62 0.22 0.55 1.14 0.84 0.72 0.68 0.44 0.38 0.67 1.75 0.20 0.74 0.92

1.03 0.84 NA 0.41 1.66 0.21 1.07 0.44 0.46 0.85 0.70 NA NA 0.31 0.43 0.21 0.00 0.59 0.00 NA 1.44 0.63 0.26 0.90 1.23 0.30 0.61 0.53 0.60 0.64 0.49 0.69 NA 0.54 0.97 1.38 NA 0.45 0.50

1.69 1.75 3.92 0.39 2.15 0.47 2.17 1.86 1.28 0.89 2.48 0.62 1.69 0.66 2.24 1.15 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 2.46 2.23 0.71 1.25 1.87 1.10 0.37 0.94 0.91 1.04 1.73 1.67 1.08 2.30 1.06 2.31 0.49 1.56 1.91

3.13 2.43 3.92 1.50 2.15 2.04 3.21 2.37 2.64 0.95 2.90 0.62 1.69 0.68 3.52 1.85 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 3.49 2.81 1.36 1.25 2.21 2.18 0.54 0.38 1.45 1.59 1.93 2.20 1.08 1.43 1.68 2.24 0.49 1.82 2.38

399 153 8 731 48 451 45 65 256 136 356 9 22 128 157 119 NA 29 10 20 180 120 55 37 115 103 19 109 81 250 200 147 22 149 206 337 13 61 271

Murray Muskogee Noble Nowata Okfuskee Oklahoma Okmulgee Osage Ottawa Pawnee Payne Pittsburg Pontotoc

5003 26458 4504 4147 4270 266834 15300 16617 12984 6383 26680 17157 13978

41 192 30 46 53 1206 144 124 105 63 150 202 62

0.82 0.73 0.67 1.11 1.24 0.45 0.94 0.75 0.81 0.99 0.56 1.18 0.44

1.28 1.01 0.85 0.35 1.40 0.49 1.34 0.91 1.02 1.06 0.83 1.60 0.60

1.54 0.38 0.88 1.03 0.68 0.35 1.42 0.70 0.49 NA 0.18 0.75 0.36

2.44 1.97 3.04 2.63 1.98 0.95 1.97 1.12 1.44 2.49 0.70 1.98 0.80

3.38 2.04 3.01 1.51 1.83 1.38 2.92 1.64 1.83 2.93 2.40 2.21 1.97

79 514 31 50 96 2920 316 258 245 126 260 403 113

146

Still Living Without the Basics Oklahoma (OK)

County

Total OHU

Pottawatomie Pushmataha Roger Mills Rogers Seminole Sequoyah Stephens Texas Tillman Tulsa Wagoner Washington Washita Woods Woodward

24540 4739 1428 25724 9575 14761 17463 7153 3594 226892 21010 20179 4506 3684 7141

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 146 96 2 102 64 169 107 24 15 884 125 116 27 14 25

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.59 2.03 0.14 0.40 0.67 1.14 0.61 0.34 0.42 0.39 0.59 0.57 0.60 0.38 0.35

0.88 2.03 0.14 0.64 0.72 1.36 0.70 0.17 0.50 0.39 0.78 0.53 0.40 0.56 0.26

0.57 0.95 NA 0.68 1.22 1.47 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.70 0.84 0.62 NA 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.50 4.64 0.00 1.57 1.26 1.54 1.35 0.00 0.66 0.85 1.38 0.99 1.80 0.00 0.00

2.74 4.64 0.00 3.07 1.54 1.97 1.54 0.00 1.33 0.77 2.03 2.30 1.71 0.00 0.00

429 166 NA 205 119 396 255 74 25 2192 348 210 58 27 63

147

Still Living Without the Basics

OREGON (OR)

Ranking 2000 32

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Baker Benton Clackamas Clatsop Columbia Coos Crook Curry Deschutes Douglas

148

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

7025

Oregon (OR)

County

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 6883 30145 128201 14703 16375 26213 7354 9543 45595 39821

OHULP 1990

0.53

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 96 103 378 139 99 232 35 82 179 251

6426

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.58

Rural OHULP 2000 2256

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 1.39 0.34 0.29 0.95 0.60 0.89 0.48 0.86 0.39 0.63

1.45 0.62 0.30 0.97 0.70 1.25 0.58 0.73 0.51 0.83

0.93 0.00 0.26 0.62 0.60 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.22 0.26

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.82

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

3567

1.16

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.25 0.78 1.21 3.28 3.14 2.94 1.94 1.67 1.22 1.39

2.65 5.30 2.22 3.35 4.28 4.08 2.09 1.46 0.29 2.34

203 233 895 267 134 416 115 126 372 518

Still Living Without the Basics Oregon (OR)

County Gilliam Grant Harney Hood River Jackson Jefferson Josephine Klamath Lake Lane Lincoln Linn Malheur Marion Morrow Multnomah Polk Sherman Tillamook Umatilla Union Wallowa Wasco Washington Wheeler Yamhill

Total OHU 819 3246 3036 7248 71532 6727 31000 25205 3084 130453 19296 39541 10221 101641 3776 272098 23058 797 10200 25195 9740 3029 9401 169162 653 28732

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2 55 29 75 307 77 413 201 29 587 128 148 50 314 26 1894 132 3 37 187 45 36 50 514 7 85

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.24 1.69 0.96 1.03 0.43 1.14 1.33 0.80 0.94 0.45 0.66 0.37 0.49 0.31 0.69 0.70 0.57 0.38 0.36 0.74 0.46 1.19 0.53 0.30 1.07 0.30

0.24 1.69 2.13 1.35 0.98 1.58 2.10 1.13 1.03 0.87 1.40 0.33 0.31 0.39 0.67 0.67 1.51 0.38 0.29 0.70 0.43 1.19 1.03 0.37 1.07 0.53

NA 2.21 1.13 0.00 0.32 0.35 0.51 0.79 1.34 0.20 0.40 0.32 0.00 0.33 0.80 0.49 0.36 0.00 0.32 0.62 0.49 1.45 0.27 0.22 NA NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.38 3.72 2.43 2.97 0.92 2.49 3.69 2.39 1.67 1.28 2.14 1.10 1.76 0.96 0.92 2.05 1.22 2.54 0.72 2.24 0.27 2.10 1.24 0.86 0.00 1.18

2.38 3.72 5.92 4.42 2.30 4.35 6.33 4.62 2.80 3.33 5.17 1.13 1.97 2.26 0.00 0.00 3.66 2.54 1.01 1.91 0.40 2.10 2.11 1.23 0.00 1.55

NA 124 40 208 754 155 796 397 47 1299 234 443 190 778 76 3650 275 NA 52 430 105 92 95 1299 14 188

149

Still Living Without the Basics

PENNSYLVANIA (PA)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

35

24450

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.51

Pennsylvania (PA)

26355

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.59

Rural OHULP 2000 8112

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Adams Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Bedford Berks

33652 537150 29005 72576 19768 141570

150

OHULP 1990

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 177 1932 196 271 171 881

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

0.53 0.36 0.68 0.37 0.87 0.62

0.67 0.39 0.84 0.55 0.88 0.66

0.51 0.35 0.74 0.55 0.87 0.49

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.77

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.36 0.73 2.69 0.89 3.12 2.04

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

14210

1.08

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.42 0.83 3.46 3.46 2.71 3.65

324 4037 364 558 373 2418

Still Living Without the Basics Pennsylvania (PA)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Blair Bradford Bucks Butler Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre Chester Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland Dauphin Delaware Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh Luzerne Lycoming McKean Mercer Mifflin Monroe Montgomery Montour Northampton Northumberland Perry Philadelphia Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna

51518 24453 218725 65862 60531 2465 23701 49323 157905 16052 32785 14773 24915 34678 83015 102670 206320 14124 106507 59969 2000 50633 5660 15060 16759 34123 18375 8584 86218 172560 37091 46551 121906 130687 47003 18024 46712 18413 49454 286098 7085 101541 38835 16695 590071 17433 7005 60530 13654 31222 2660 16529

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 111 151 614 215 270 10 103 248 435 229 225 58 131 575 273 449 661 80 454 348 36 353 39 174 118 418 162 65 239 1114 360 209 559 583 184 69 466 283 140 798 54 523 207 100 4877 75 51 335 294 164 45 78

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

0.22 0.62 0.28 0.33 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.50 0.28 1.43 0.69 0.39 0.53 1.66 0.33 0.44 0.32 0.57 0.43 0.58 1.80 0.70 0.69 1.16 0.70 1.22 0.88 0.76 0.28 0.65 0.97 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.39 0.38 1.00 1.54 0.28 0.28 0.76 0.52 0.53 0.60 0.83 0.43 0.73 0.55 2.15 0.53 1.69 0.47

0.37 0.66 0.37 0.53 0.75 0.98 0.42 0.60 0.42 0.92 0.93 0.63 0.79 2.31 0.41 0.48 0.36 0.63 0.46 0.61 1.80 1.10 0.69 1.30 0.79 1.80 1.25 0.70 0.28 1.23 1.87 0.72 0.35 0.57 0.63 0.45 1.85 2.71 0.32 0.07 0.97 0.48 0.71 0.64 0.00 0.42 0.73 0.60 2.74 0.58 1.69 0.50

0.29 0.70 0.14 0.48 0.46 0.80 0.70 0.36 0.35 1.12 0.80 0.33 0.61 0.74 0.28 0.41 0.19 0.37 0.33 0.81 1.15 0.86 1.57 0.67 0.87 1.11 0.68 1.16 0.29 0.78 0.96 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.36 0.34 0.48 1.32 0.41 0.31 0.68 0.48 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.76 0.76 1.71 0.51 1.60 0.61

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 0.40 1.59 0.75 1.14 0.98 0.00 1.34 0.72 0.92 5.97 1.94 0.84 1.05 4.89 0.75 1.10 0.64 0.89 0.96 1.09 4.28 2.72 1.42 3.37 2.21 2.72 2.23 2.65 0.91 2.62 4.07 1.52 1.74 0.84 0.57 1.07 3.36 4.11 0.95 0.64 2.65 1.45 0.58 2.69 1.77 0.24 1.29 1.97 8.00 1.50 5.04 1.48

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.96 1.36 0.00 2.24 2.71 0.00 1.76 2.31 2.20 2.74 3.05 2.15 2.61 7.23 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.92 1.35 4.28 5.46 1.42 4.82 2.72 5.04 4.47 2.76 0.83 4.25 9.92 3.00 2.04 1.34 1.55 1.07 8.01 9.78 1.59 0.00 6.10 1.23 0.96 2.92 0.00 0.27 1.29 2.82 12.11 1.52 5.04 1.59

240 246 1713 440 556 26 193 622 1036 584 551 123 284 2519 646 1043 1673 185 1244 619 76 942 58 333 235 1768 639 200 477 3309 1197 413 1450 1331 392 155 1833 1097 397 1977 226 1148 511 196 13087 184 146 605 1209 393 74 150

151

Still Living Without the Basics Pennsylvania (PA)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland Wyoming York

15925 13178 22747 17696 81130 18350 149813 10762 148219

152

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 96 40 119 136 377 68 460 61 653

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

0.60 0.30 0.52 0.77 0.46 0.37 0.31 0.57 0.44

0.63 0.47 0.70 1.30 0.42 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.52

0.62 0.67 0.45 0.53 0.48 0.15 0.26 0.63 0.51

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.13 1.35 1.05 4.49 1.25 1.18 0.95 1.16 1.24

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.50 2.50 1.52 7.97 1.34 1.44 1.55 1.38 1.08

203 47 255 589 776 165 1068 133 1421

Still Living Without the Basics

RHODE ISLAND (RI)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

31

County Bristol Kent Newport Providence Washington

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

2194

Total OHU 19033 67320 35228 239936 46907

OHULP 1990

0.54

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 59 285 194 1531 125

Percent of OHULP 1990

1670

Rural OHULP 2000

0.44

100

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.31 0.42 0.55 0.64 0.27

0.00 0.16 0.13 0.38 0.28

NA 0.36 0.14 0.42 0.22

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.29

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

233

0.47

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.07 1.59 3.01 1.33 0.79

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61

160 601 304 4300 223

153

Still Living Without the Basics

SOUTH CAROLINA (SC)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

22

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

9521

0.62

South Carolina (SC)

County Abbeville Aiken Allendale Anderson Bamberg Barnwell Beaufort Berkeley Calhoun Charleston Cherokee

154

Percent of OHULP 1990

OHULP 1990 16626

1.32

Rural OHULP 2000 5476

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 10131 55587 3915 65649 6123 9021 45532 49922 5917 123326 20495

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 99 234 73 268 50 123 139 203 81 658 131

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.93

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

12715

2.31

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.98 0.42 1.86 0.41 0.82 1.36 0.31 0.41 1.37 0.53 0.64

0.81 0.72 2.14 0.42 0.76 1.39 0.50 0.58 1.37 1.74 0.81

0.38 0.37 2.86 0.42 0.00 1.65 0.05 0.71 1.71 0.51 0.53

1.70 1.04 2.64 0.85 1.31 3.14 1.33 0.87 3.40 1.15 0.76

1.36 1.71 3.49 1.33 1.75 2.84 2.58 0.50 3.40 3.93 0.82

193 506 174 679 97 261 325 458 191 1516 259

Still Living Without the Basics South Carolina (SC)

County Chester Chesterfield Clarendon Colleton Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Jasper Kershaw Lancaster Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Marion Marlboro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens Richland Saluda Spartanburg Sumter Union Williamsburg York

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Total OHU 12880 16557 11812 14470 25793 11199 34709 8270 8774 47147 21659 149556 25729 7444 81800 7042 20188 23178 26290 6886 83240 3558 13301 10478 14026 27283 34118 41306 120101 7127 97735 37728 12087 13714 61051

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 93 235 165 207 202 209 237 65 152 263 175 630 119 67 464 94 141 106 177 94 332 59 170 137 126 190 351 235 607 75 507 241 115 210 212

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.72 1.42 1.40 1.43 0.78 1.87 0.68 0.79 1.73 0.56 0.81 0.42 0.46 0.90 0.57 1.33 0.70 0.46 0.67 1.37 0.40 1.66 1.28 1.31 0.90 0.70 1.03 0.57 0.51 1.05 0.52 0.64 0.95 1.53 0.35

0.98 1.55 1.42 1.68 1.03 2.27 1.64 0.82 2.06 0.59 1.41 0.47 0.64 0.87 1.02 1.52 0.53 0.55 0.81 1.52 0.65 1.66 1.55 2.02 1.06 0.79 1.05 0.75 0.40 1.27 0.56 0.78 1.02 1.62 0.58

0.82 2.28 2.21 1.29 1.35 2.66 0.41 0.91 2.19 0.61 0.71 0.40 0.65 0.85 0.34 0.60 1.03 0.39 0.99 0.68 0.52 1.79 1.74 0.80 1.31 0.72 1.06 0.45 0.60 1.31 0.43 0.79 1.94 1.80 0.64

1.17 3.59 3.05 3.29 1.71 3.90 2.38 2.32 3.34 1.58 1.81 0.79 0.83 2.27 2.01 1.98 2.46 1.62 1.46 1.36 1.28 1.36 2.72 1.51 1.88 1.64 2.54 1.79 1.18 1.89 1.42 1.84 2.44 2.77 0.97

2.03 4.18 3.06 4.03 2.72 4.88 3.56 3.26 5.00 1.64 3.33 1.53 2.30 2.15 3.28 2.28 1.91 3.17 2.26 1.45 2.13 1.36 3.81 3.85 2.46 2.71 2.46 3.22 2.20 2.59 2.26 1.91 3.33 3.09 2.36

184 432 401 588 487 657 484 168 343 580 415 1359 296 165 1094 227 222 187 474 150 751 160 338 361 294 382 854 515 1581 259 1037 591 230 631 536

155

Still Living Without the Basics

SOUTH DAKOTA (SD)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

19

1858

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

OHULP 1990

0.64

South Dakota (SD)

County

Total OHU

Aurora Beadle Bennett Bon Homme Brookings Brown Brule Buffalo Butte

1165 7210 1123 2635 10665 14638 1998 526 3516

156

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 10 19 28 24 38 37 7 18 12

2315

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.89

Rural OHULP 2000 1312

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of Percent of OHULP population (as % of OHULP above 65 Rural years in (as % of OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.86 0.26 2.49 0.91 0.36 0.25 0.35 3.42 0.34

0.86 0.72 2.49 0.91 0.87 0.35 0.35 3.42 0.00

1.76 NA 0.00 1.33 0.60 0.19 NA 5.88 1.67

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.98

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1984

1.59

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.38 0.70 3.54 1.09 0.99 0.12 1.82 4.42 0.00

3.38 0.88 3.54 1.09 6.08 0.60 1.82 4.42 0.00

13 74 52 41 71 54 12 33 34

Still Living Without the Basics South Dakota (SD)

County

Total OHU

Campbell Charles Mix Clark Clay Codington Corson Custer Davison Day Deuel Dewey Douglas Edmunds Fall River Faulk Grant Gregory Haakon Hamlin Hand Hanson Harding Hughes Hutchinson Hyde Jackson Jerauld Jones Kingsbury Lake Lawrence Lincoln Lyman McCook McPherson Marshall Meade Mellette Miner Minnehaha Moody Pennington Perkins Potter Roberts Sanborn Shannon Spink Stanley Sully Todd Tripp

725 3343 1598 4878 10357 1271 2970 7585 2586 1843 1863 1321 1681 3127 1014 3116 2022 870 2048 1543 1115 525 6512 3190 679 945 987 509 2406 4372 8881 8782 1400 2204 1227 1844 8805 694 1212 57996 2526 34641 1429 1145 3683 1043 2785 2847 1111 630 2462 2550

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 0 22 2 54 43 50 26 18 23 11 31 11 6 47 0 25 20 12 2 3 21 2 31 17 0 25 0 3 9 36 46 16 2 18 6 17 61 22 9 174 18 143 10 0 27 8 361 9 8 0 48 21

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.00 0.66 0.13 1.11 0.42 3.93 0.88 0.24 0.89 0.60 1.66 0.83 0.36 1.50 0.00 0.80 0.99 1.38 0.10 0.19 1.88 0.38 0.48 0.53 0.00 2.65 0.00 0.59 0.37 0.82 0.52 0.18 0.14 0.82 0.49 0.92 0.69 3.17 0.74 0.30 0.71 0.41 0.70 0.00 0.73 0.77 12.96 0.32 0.72 0.00 1.95 0.82

0.00 0.66 0.13 0.00 0.59 3.93 0.88 0.13 0.89 0.60 1.66 0.83 0.36 1.96 0.00 0.79 0.99 1.38 0.10 0.19 1.88 0.38 1.20 0.53 0.00 2.65 0.00 0.59 0.37 0.63 1.18 0.30 0.14 0.82 0.49 0.92 1.23 3.17 0.74 0.32 0.71 1.13 0.70 0.00 0.73 0.77 13.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.95 1.77

0.00 0.55 NA 0.58 0.36 NA 1.67 0.60 1.04 1.16 NA NA NA 0.64 0.00 1.67 NA 2.03 0.00 NA NA 0.00 0.66 0.87 0.00 NA 0.00 NA NA 0.48 0.23 0.57 0.00 2.13 1.39 0.91 0.72 5.36 1.43 0.33 1.30 0.14 0.94 0.00 0.66 NA 7.56 0.59 2.30 0.00 2.57 NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 1.65 0.90 3.32 0.18 5.86 3.61 0.00 3.89 3.41 0.71 0.00 0.00 2.78 0.00 3.64 2.20 1.71 0.00 0.00 10.00 1.75 1.39 1.03 0.00 6.86 0.00 0.00 3.63 2.30 0.64 2.65 0.70 4.15 0.74 1.54 0.82 5.17 1.89 1.23 0.78 0.84 1.29 0.00 1.96 0.67 15.92 1.78 3.92 0.00 2.30 2.66

0.00 1.65 0.90 0.00 1.22 5.86 3.61 0.00 3.89 3.41 0.71 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00 3.61 2.20 1.71 0.00 0.00 10.00 1.75 5.93 1.03 0.00 6.86 0.00 0.00 3.63 1.49 2.11 5.16 0.70 4.15 0.74 1.54 0.00 5.17 1.89 3.17 0.78 2.96 1.29 0.00 1.96 0.67 16.70 0.94 0.00 0.00 2.30 5.28

0 41 NA 130 108 166 30 44 29 16 102 25 19 52 0 45 65 34 NA NA 80 NA 60 28 0 93 0 NA 10 38 110 21 NA 34 11 38 83 43 16 481 37 333 13 0 39 17 985 13 18 0 118 83

157

Still Living Without the Basics South Dakota (SD)

County Turner Union Walworth Yankton Ziebach

158

Total OHU 3510 4927 2506 8187 741

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 13 14 13 25 26

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.37 0.28 0.52 0.31 3.51

0.37 0.28 0.20 0.64 3.51

NA NA 0.00 0.53 NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.01 0.61 2.48 0.75 3.69

2.01 0.73 0.00 0.00 3.69

18 36 37 61 33

Still Living Without the Basics

TENNESSEE (TN)

Ranking 2000 18

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 14340

Tennessee (TN)

County Anderson Bedford Benton Bledsoe Blount Bradley Campbell Cannon Carroll Carter Cheatham Chester Claiborne Clay Cocke Coffee Crockett Cumberland

Total OHU 29780 13905 6863 4430 42667 34281 16125 4998 11779 23486 12878 5660 11799 3379 13762 18885 5632 19508

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.64

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 64 116 51 99 186 150 189 44 46 199 44 56 201 60 269 86 21 106

OHULP 1990 23840

Percent of OHULP 1990 1.29

Rural OHULP 2000 8222

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.21 0.83 0.74 2.23 0.44 0.44 1.17 0.88 0.39 0.85 0.34 0.99 1.70 1.78 1.95 0.46 0.37 0.54

0.36 0.57 0.96 2.23 0.84 0.47 1.64 0.88 0.47 1.45 0.37 1.09 2.36 1.78 2.89 0.67 0.37 0.80

0.00 1.77 0.75 2.10 0.29 0.29 0.51 0.55 0.63 1.52 NA 0.67 1.80 1.58 2.47 0.46 1.44 0.38

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.04

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

19438

2.78

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.37 2.35 1.20 5.53 1.96 0.94 2.51 0.76 0.44 2.43 0.40 4.91 5.24 2.21 4.54 1.03 0.99 2.14

0.36 0.26 1.62 5.53 3.96 0.00 3.69 0.76 0.55 4.39 0.44 5.58 7.15 2.21 7.57 2.14 0.99 3.37

128 244 127 280 413 399 337 113 104 306 85 101 553 103 416 165 68 217

159

Still Living Without the Basics Tennessee (TN)

County

Total OHU

Davidson Decatur DeKalb Dickson Dyer Fayette Fentress Franklin Gibson Giles Grainger Greene Grundy Hamblen Hamilton Hancock Hardeman Hardin Hawkins Haywood Henderson Henry Hickman Houston Humphreys Jackson Jefferson Johnson Knox Lake Lauderdale Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Loudon McMinn McNairy Macon Madison Marion Marshall Maury Meigs Monroe Montgomery Moore Morgan Obion Overton Perry Pickett Polk

237405 4908 6984 16473 14751 10467 6693 15003 19518 11713 8270 25756 5562 23211 124444 2769 9412 10426 21936 7558 10306 13019 8081 3216 7238 4466 17155 6827 157872 2410 9567 15480 4381 12503 15944 19721 9980 7916 35552 11037 10307 26444 4304 15329 48330 2211 6990 13182 8110 3023 2091 6448

160

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 1062 47 54 64 78 102 87 94 98 126 227 208 64 90 588 212 154 112 365 94 63 50 105 40 46 73 105 172 533 26 86 312 50 110 42 125 77 134 148 123 37 124 52 163 243 5 92 70 123 35 31 84

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.45 0.96 0.77 0.39 0.53 0.97 1.30 0.63 0.50 1.08 2.74 0.81 1.15 0.39 0.47 7.66 1.64 1.07 1.66 1.24 0.61 0.38 1.30 1.24 0.64 1.63 0.61 2.52 0.34 1.08 0.90 2.02 1.14 0.88 0.26 0.63 0.77 1.69 0.42 1.11 0.36 0.47 1.21 1.06 0.50 0.23 1.32 0.53 1.52 1.16 1.48 1.30

0.63 0.96 0.99 0.50 0.58 0.97 1.30 0.72 0.62 1.43 2.74 1.08 1.15 0.51 0.93 7.66 1.84 1.15 2.48 1.47 0.80 0.59 1.30 1.24 0.82 1.63 0.81 2.91 0.86 1.08 1.02 2.82 1.66 1.13 0.12 0.79 0.83 1.99 0.33 1.29 0.38 0.67 1.21 1.33 0.47 0.23 1.37 0.42 1.72 1.16 1.48 1.30

0.38 1.09 0.74 0.25 1.65 1.17 2.03 0.52 0.80 0.74 3.85 1.02 0.81 0.64 0.39 6.95 1.39 1.60 2.30 2.02 0.56 0.47 1.06 1.56 0.55 2.36 0.64 2.84 0.36 1.86 1.22 1.44 NA 2.10 0.29 0.63 0.28 2.68 0.63 1.52 0.48 0.64 0.73 1.40 0.39 NA 1.19 0.79 3.13 NA 3.97 1.40

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.98 3.20 0.91 0.94 1.30 3.43 3.58 2.24 0.41 2.61 9.05 1.60 3.23 0.22 0.84 11.14 3.50 2.89 3.75 1.80 1.86 0.81 2.68 1.43 3.17 2.43 2.29 5.22 0.68 2.86 1.61 5.69 1.80 1.70 0.41 1.36 2.44 5.00 1.20 1.94 1.00 1.59 4.67 2.68 1.06 1.98 4.67 1.23 5.03 4.02 0.57 3.54

2.17 3.20 1.34 0.90 2.96 3.43 3.58 2.85 0.60 4.40 9.05 2.71 3.23 0.00 4.07 11.14 4.45 3.25 5.72 2.31 2.42 1.52 2.68 1.43 4.95 2.43 3.75 6.61 1.74 2.86 2.39 8.46 3.17 2.43 0.00 2.66 2.47 5.80 2.23 2.03 2.43 4.03 4.67 3.49 0.70 1.98 5.49 0.56 6.37 4.02 0.57 3.54

2907 103 103 122 194 248 228 179 189 327 547 396 136 223 1445 446 337 224 704 247 111 69 284 47 107 164 189 360 1137 43 200 1424 113 193 103 239 103 243 395 277 63 201 214 315 567 NA 238 123 366 133 74 204

Still Living Without the Basics Tennessee (TN)

County

Total OHU

Putnam Rhea Roane Robertson Rutherford Scott Sequatchie Sevier Shelby Smith Stewart Sullivan Sumner Tipton Trousdale Unicoi Union Van Buren Warren Washington Wayne Weakley White Williamson Wilson

24865 11184 21200 19906 66443 8203 4463 28467 338366 6878 4930 63556 48941 18106 2780 7516 6742 2180 15181 44195 5936 13599 9229 44725 32798

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 162 86 84 80 218 122 67 188 2057 66 91 329 315 119 7 42 107 52 57 232 59 59 65 170 114

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.65 0.77 0.40 0.40 0.33 1.49 1.50 0.66 0.61 0.96 1.85 0.52 0.64 0.66 0.25 0.56 1.59 2.39 0.38 0.52 0.99 0.43 0.70 0.38 0.35

0.90 0.71 0.63 0.46 0.63 1.67 1.50 1.03 0.58 1.01 1.85 0.75 0.82 0.83 0.25 0.96 1.59 2.39 0.57 1.05 0.99 0.41 0.69 0.75 0.50

1.02 0.23 0.96 0.25 0.55 1.44 0.00 0.59 0.63 2.25 4.24 0.83 0.96 0.93 0.00 0.36 2.16 1.83 0.14 0.68 1.11 0.29 0.41 0.73 0.33

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.52 1.71 1.13 0.57 0.94 2.41 3.33 1.78 1.39 4.41 6.04 1.47 0.57 1.12 1.66 1.57 2.55 4.11 0.86 1.33 2.30 0.64 1.58 2.09 1.30

1.96 2.35 2.46 1.17 3.45 2.88 3.33 2.96 4.05 5.76 6.04 3.45 1.49 2.24 1.66 3.33 2.55 4.11 1.93 3.30 2.30 1.11 2.15 6.15 2.21

358 171 150 321 475 193 136 383 5496 112 154 604 894 237 NA 74 154 94 78 527 99 188 139 393 180

161

Still Living Without the Basics

TEXAS (TX)

Ranking 2000 15

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 54853

Texas (TX)

County Anderson Andrews Angelina Aransas Archer Armstrong

162

Total OHU 15678 4601 28685 9132 3345 802

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

OHULP 1990

0.74

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 129 28 181 57 14 2

56844

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.94

Rural OHULP 2000 15169

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.82 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.42 0.25

1.07 2.15 0.74 1.00 0.47 0.25

1.02 0.52 0.60 0.40 0.00 NA

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.16

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

26028

2.23

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.00 1.31 1.36 1.58 1.81 2.38

3.12 8.20 2.31 2.17 1.85 2.38

264 147 537 137 20 NA

Still Living Without the Basics Texas (TX)

County

Total OHU

Atascosa Austin Bailey Bandera Bastrop Baylor Bee Bell Bexar Blanco Borden Bosque Bowie Brazoria Brazos Brewster Briscoe Brooks Brown Burleson Burnet Caldwell Calhoun Callahan Cameron Camp Carson Cass Castro Chambers Cherokee Childress Clay Cochran Coke Coleman Collin Collingsworth Colorado Comal Comanche Concho Cooke Coryell Cottle Crane Crockett Crosby Culberson Dallam Dallas Dawson

12816 8747 2348 7010 20097 1791 9061 85507 488942 3303 292 6726 33058 81954 55202 3669 724 2711 14306 6363 13133 10816 7442 5061 97267 4336 2470 12190 2761 9139 16651 2474 4323 1309 1544 3889 181970 1294 7641 29066 5522 1058 13643 19950 820 1360 1524 2512 1052 2317 807621 4726

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 334 92 35 72 317 0 113 381 2960 34 3 30 231 375 268 54 6 94 87 72 46 146 76 30 1870 31 7 189 35 70 231 22 14 7 14 24 498 7 148 98 23 5 74 85 6 4 11 24 8 7 5058 30

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 2.61 1.05 1.49 1.03 1.58 0.00 1.25 0.45 0.61 1.03 1.03 0.45 0.70 0.46 0.49 1.47 0.83 3.47 0.61 1.13 0.35 1.35 1.02 0.59 1.92 0.71 0.28 1.55 1.27 0.77 1.39 0.89 0.32 0.53 0.91 0.62 0.27 0.54 1.94 0.34 0.42 0.47 0.54 0.43 0.73 0.29 0.72 0.96 0.76 0.30 0.63 0.63

3.68 1.65 3.99 1.03 1.97 0.00 1.46 0.58 1.63 1.03 1.03 0.55 1.14 0.66 1.12 2.40 0.83 5.03 1.01 1.35 0.42 1.82 1.45 0.70 4.05 0.98 0.29 1.83 1.45 1.13 1.53 4.06 0.44 0.53 0.91 0.68 0.62 0.54 2.48 0.24 0.43 0.47 0.69 0.78 0.73 3.03 0.00 0.96 0.76 0.00 1.10 0.81

2.32 1.03 0.00 NA 1.03 0.00 1.17 0.42 0.59 0.71 NA NA 0.82 0.28 0.56 NA NA 0.70 0.35 0.93 0.14 1.97 0.41 0.98 1.53 NA NA 1.27 NA 1.03 1.01 0.76 NA 0.00 0.79 0.56 0.39 1.04 2.36 0.17 0.58 NA 0.76 0.69 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.69 NA NA 0.38 0.52

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

6.09 4.46 0.00 4.88 4.99 0.00 3.07 0.97 1.50 0.00 7.32 1.06 1.12 1.16 0.94 1.48 3.42 5.68 1.49 4.44 1.22 3.13 2.04 0.95 3.98 0.65 1.47 2.52 4.10 3.36 4.46 0.00 1.25 0.00 2.61 1.14 1.24 0.00 3.07 0.30 1.91 1.39 0.60 1.58 0.00 0.00 3.54 1.72 0.74 1.80 1.47 1.18

10.33 6.79 0.00 4.88 7.70 0.00 4.16 2.17 5.40 0.00 7.32 1.38 2.77 2.61 6.59 7.69 3.42 11.04 2.89 5.31 1.06 4.44 4.45 1.20 8.10 0.00 1.47 3.22 7.51 4.55 6.37 0.00 1.70 0.00 2.61 3.20 2.19 0.00 3.73 0.00 1.96 1.39 1.40 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.74 0.00 7.86 0.00

914 190 151 119 691 0 286 936 8276 70 NA 65 538 1027 535 179 24 279 181 117 106 498 222 57 7262 64 12 499 176 167 571 45 22 18 28 50 1257 13 286 302 63 NA 183 197 19 10 20 80 21 NA 16573 71

163

Still Living Without the Basics Texas (TX)

County Deaf Smith Delta Denton DeWitt Dickens Dimmit Donley Duval Eastland Ector Edwards Ellis El Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fisher Floyd Foard Fort Bend Franklin Freestone Frio Gaines Galveston Garza Gillespie Glasscock Goliad Gonzales Gray Grayson Grayson Gregg Grimes Guadalupe Hale Hall Hamilton Hansford Hardeman Hardin Harris Harrison Hartley Haskell Hays Hemphill Henderson Hidalgo Hill

164

Total OHU 6180 2094 158903 7207 980 3308 1578 4350 7321 43846 801 37020 210022 12568 6496 11105 8722 1785 2730 664 110915 3754 6588 4743 4681 94782 1663 8521 483 2644 6782 8793 42849 42849 42687 7753 30900 11975 1548 3374 2005 1943 17805 1205516 23087 1604 2569 33410 1280 28804 156824 12204

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 50 19 429 78 10 111 2 94 50 283 15 253 2338 107 84 72 99 18 50 0 607 49 53 77 15 558 10 19 3 19 130 18 221 221 219 188 199 59 13 14 9 12 133 8405 225 10 28 163 4 192 4844 85

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.81 0.91 0.27 1.08 1.02 3.36 0.13 2.16 0.68 0.65 1.87 0.68 1.11 0.85 1.29 0.65 1.14 1.01 1.83 0.00 0.55 1.31 0.80 1.62 0.32 0.59 0.60 0.22 0.62 0.72 1.92 0.20 0.52 0.52 0.51 2.42 0.64 0.49 0.84 0.41 0.45 0.62 0.75 0.70 0.97 0.62 1.09 0.49 0.31 0.67 3.09 0.70

1.52 0.91 0.41 1.13 1.02 3.62 0.13 3.06 0.86 0.45 1.87 0.74 6.01 1.22 1.22 0.55 1.46 1.01 2.10 0.00 1.68 1.40 1.16 2.02 0.08 0.54 0.00 0.33 0.62 0.72 1.94 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.58 3.07 1.08 0.67 0.84 0.64 0.70 0.63 0.86 0.58 1.03 1.45 1.10 0.80 0.31 0.65 7.19 0.64

0.93 1.26 0.14 1.27 NA 4.51 0.00 1.60 0.85 0.78 NA 1.12 1.06 NA 2.04 0.90 2.43 1.05 2.51 0.00 0.51 2.05 0.87 2.37 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.30 NA 1.03 2.06 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.63 3.03 0.53 0.28 NA 0.47 0.00 NA 0.76 0.53 1.19 0.00 0.76 0.49 NA 0.76 1.71 0.34

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.79 1.55 0.51 1.41 2.20 5.01 0.00 3.32 1.07 1.31 2.51 2.38 2.13 2.40 1.26 0.97 2.89 2.16 4.65 0.00 2.14 2.77 3.28 3.41 0.78 1.74 2.49 0.67 0.00 2.49 4.54 0.37 1.22 1.22 1.18 5.06 1.89 1.62 0.82 0.44 1.05 0.91 2.20 1.77 2.84 0.00 2.92 1.23 2.56 2.02 6.49 1.80

0.00 1.55 1.51 2.04 2.20 6.44 0.00 5.25 1.07 2.31 2.51 3.69 10.95 4.58 2.56 0.63 4.73 2.16 4.39 0.00 5.31 2.93 5.22 12.90 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.33 0.00 2.49 5.68 0.00 2.09 2.09 3.26 9.09 3.69 3.10 0.82 0.73 2.78 0.00 1.83 0.68 3.20 0.00 3.77 4.16 2.56 2.60 13.54 1.98

131 44 1120 141 21 325 NA 225 115 792 49 593 8253 465 189 142 148 16 69 0 2203 87 101 229 16 1374 77 38 14 45 342 28 498 498 490 405 570 226 46 17 35 28 371 26878 479 39 65 423 8 682 19920 183

Still Living Without the Basics Texas (TX)

County Hockley Hood Hopkins Houston Howard Hudspeth Hunt Hutchinson Irion Jack Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jim Hogg Jim Wells Johnson Jones Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kenedy Kent Kerr Kimble King Kinney Kleberg Knox Lamar Lamb Lampasas La Salle Lavaca Lee Leon Liberty Limestone Lipscomb Live Oak Llano Loving Lubbock Lynn McCulloch McLennan McMullen Madison Marion Martin Mason Matagorda

Total OHU 7994 16176 12286 8259 11389 1092 28742 9283 694 3047 5336 13450 896 92880 1815 12961 43636 6140 4454 24367 8613 138 353 17813 1866 108 1314 10896 1690 19077 5360 6554 1819 7669 5663 6189 23242 7906 1205 4230 7879 31 92516 2354 3277 78859 355 3914 4610 1624 1607 13901

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 52 82 75 108 35 53 199 53 9 14 25 116 15 533 18 214 252 81 63 186 66 3 2 97 13 0 6 84 4 143 39 40 53 96 70 79 145 71 11 22 64 0 323 24 29 440 13 28 114 11 13 87

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.65 0.51 0.61 1.31 0.31 4.85 0.69 0.57 1.30 0.46 0.47 0.86 1.67 0.57 0.99 1.65 0.58 1.32 1.41 0.76 0.77 2.17 0.57 0.54 0.70 0.00 0.46 0.77 0.24 0.75 0.73 0.61 2.91 1.25 1.24 1.28 0.62 0.90 0.91 0.52 0.81 0.00 0.35 1.02 0.88 0.56 3.66 0.72 2.47 0.68 0.81 0.63

0.94 0.48 0.62 1.72 0.58 4.85 0.65 0.23 1.30 0.56 0.38 0.97 1.67 0.60 0.00 1.81 0.83 1.37 1.64 0.77 0.85 2.17 0.57 0.72 0.97 0.00 0.46 1.81 0.24 0.96 0.62 0.38 4.12 1.53 1.66 1.28 0.82 1.48 0.91 0.27 0.61 0.00 0.66 0.84 0.52 0.44 3.66 0.60 2.47 0.64 0.81 0.64

NA 0.52 NA 1.49 0.00 6.44 0.73 0.53 NA 0.80 0.81 1.17 NA 0.60 0.98 1.42 0.63 0.94 1.10 0.75 0.67 NA 0.00 0.57 0.77 NA NA 0.39 0.95 1.09 1.30 0.38 3.90 1.91 2.74 2.10 0.20 0.60 NA 0.59 NA NA 0.21 1.00 1.23 0.55 4.32 0.47 3.17 NA 1.06 0.30

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.10 2.41 0.85 3.57 0.28 10.44 2.01 1.75 6.25 2.78 1.66 1.82 10.34 1.05 3.58 3.69 1.41 3.23 2.57 1.92 3.35 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.12 0.82 2.02 0.99 0.34 7.39 2.66 2.90 3.52 2.25 2.47 3.61 1.80 2.92 0.00 0.75 3.40 1.78 0.87 9.38 0.32 3.81 1.64 5.49 1.80

2.25 1.20 1.26 5.89 0.00 10.44 1.99 1.35 6.25 3.72 2.03 2.35 10.34 2.77 0.00 5.73 1.43 2.60 2.86 1.96 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 3.80 0.82 4.00 0.53 0.77 9.40 3.42 4.06 3.52 3.91 5.06 3.61 0.60 1.86 0.00 1.19 1.95 3.05 2.97 9.38 0.65 3.81 1.85 5.49 2.48

128 166 233 230 84 137 510 139 17 22 31 224 23 1361 47 575 572 161 130 512 169 NA 9 248 21 0 19 223 10 282 99 101 94 234 188 179 541 126 23 62 117 NA 859 71 75 1124 24 55 333 26 17 183

165

Still Living Without the Basics Texas (TX)

County

Total OHU

Maverick Medina Menard Midland Milam Mills Mitchell Montague Montgomery Moore Morris Motley Nacogdoches Navarro Newton Nolan Nueces Ochiltree Oldham Orange Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio Rains Randall Reagan Real Red River Reeves Refugio Roberts Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher Scurry Shackelford Shelby Sherman Smith Somervell

13089 12880 990 42745 9199 2001 2837 7770 103296 6774 5215 606 22006 16491 5583 6170 110365 3261 735 31642 10594 8821 31131 3322 5153 15119 40760 2530 3617 41240 1107 1245 5827 4091 2985 362 6179 14530 4428 17364 4485 3575 8651 22093 2289 1115 5756 1300 9595 1124 65692 2438

166

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 408 171 11 135 114 28 17 50 606 29 63 4 176 113 75 18 691 0 0 157 61 105 119 23 61 136 283 76 33 168 4 24 85 61 39 0 63 60 66 213 40 43 215 242 18 6 24 4 60 7 499 20

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 3.12 1.33 1.11 0.32 1.24 1.40 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.43 1.21 0.66 0.80 0.69 1.34 0.29 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.58 1.19 0.38 0.69 1.18 0.90 0.69 3.00 0.91 0.41 0.36 1.93 1.46 1.49 1.31 0.00 1.02 0.41 1.49 1.23 0.89 1.20 2.49 1.10 0.79 0.54 0.42 0.31 0.63 0.62 0.76 0.82

7.36 1.40 1.11 0.72 2.04 1.40 0.79 0.86 0.80 0.40 1.37 0.66 0.95 0.70 1.34 0.35 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.49 1.35 0.43 0.83 1.55 0.99 1.12 4.51 0.91 0.39 0.00 1.93 1.76 1.71 1.53 0.00 1.39 0.52 1.43 1.51 0.89 1.20 2.49 2.32 0.22 0.54 0.61 0.31 0.58 0.62 1.00 0.82

3.23 1.22 NA 0.24 1.24 1.88 1.42 0.52 0.54 NA 1.47 0.00 0.65 0.65 1.98 NA 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.45 1.43 0.49 NA 0.65 0.67 0.15 2.70 1.16 0.43 NA NA 2.09 0.93 0.56 0.00 1.01 NA 0.66 1.10 0.92 1.64 2.88 0.95 1.37 0.00 0.56 0.00 NA NA 0.79 NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.26 4.46 0.87 1.23 3.07 2.20 0.90 1.59 1.99 1.33 4.14 3.88 1.80 1.77 3.71 0.74 1.43 0.00 0.00 1.39 1.64 2.92 0.90 2.31 2.18 1.43 1.45 4.58 3.54 0.58 0.00 1.22 2.17 3.74 1.29 0.00 1.85 1.94 3.17 3.23 3.68 1.52 5.48 3.59 3.30 0.00 1.30 0.50 0.72 1.41 2.23 0.89

8.25 6.95 0.87 3.27 5.24 2.20 2.42 0.68 3.09 3.25 4.59 3.88 2.91 2.15 3.71 1.48 4.17 0.00 0.00 1.66 1.68 2.33 0.99 2.05 5.28 1.39 0.00 6.76 3.54 0.51 0.00 1.22 3.03 0.68 2.33 0.00 2.99 1.89 1.56 4.09 3.68 1.52 5.48 8.26 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.50 0.98 1.41 2.78 0.89

1564 433 36 412 236 43 45 82 1715 88 181 NA 435 341 164 55 1896 0 0 280 164 194 255 98 124 320 744 191 54 465 NA 38 145 206 96 0 166 201 164 406 56 72 430 754 28 10 82 NA 170 34 1344 45

Still Living Without the Basics Texas (TX)

County

Total OHU

Starr Stephens Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant Taylor Terrell Terry Throckmorton Titus Tom Green Travis Trinity Tyler Upshur Upton Uvalde Val Verde Van Zandt Victoria Walker Waller Ward Washington Webb Wharton Wheeler Wichita Wilbarger Willacy Williamson Wilson Winkler Wise Wood Yoakum Young Zapata Zavala

14410 3661 513 713 1515 2925 533864 47274 443 4278 765 9552 39503 320766 5723 7775 13290 1256 8559 14151 18195 30071 18303 10557 3964 11322 50740 14799 2152 48441 5537 5584 86766 11038 2584 17178 14583 2469 7167 3921 3428

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 679 6 0 4 10 26 1945 246 11 26 4 63 224 1590 45 109 119 6 115 217 161 161 155 138 39 143 1493 202 4 118 21 165 258 156 2 96 89 16 29 96 159

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 4.71 0.16 0.00 0.56 0.66 0.89 0.36 0.52 2.48 0.61 0.52 0.66 0.57 0.50 0.79 1.40 0.90 0.48 1.34 1.53 0.88 0.54 0.85 1.31 0.98 1.26 2.94 1.36 0.19 0.24 0.38 2.95 0.30 1.41 0.08 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.40 2.45 4.64

5.76 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.40 0.27 0.50 2.48 0.61 0.52 0.70 0.52 1.14 0.79 1.45 1.02 0.48 0.92 1.14 0.97 0.41 1.06 1.55 0.67 1.72 28.13 2.25 0.19 0.00 1.01 2.83 0.61 1.43 0.43 0.54 0.54 0.75 0.17 4.84 6.51

2.43 0.00 0.00 NA 2.53 0.00 0.27 0.30 3.57 NA 0.00 NA 0.39 0.40 1.38 0.96 0.81 NA 2.06 1.10 0.56 0.30 0.86 1.04 0.95 1.54 2.53 1.48 NA 0.19 0.34 3.20 0.43 1.99 0.00 0.44 0.25 0.00 NA 1.07 5.31

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

7.50 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.94 1.19 6.14 2.38 0.00 2.00 1.73 1.41 2.21 4.49 3.89 2.71 4.03 3.66 2.51 1.35 1.61 1.65 1.72 4.66 5.39 3.83 0.57 1.02 2.35 6.42 1.30 4.23 0.41 1.99 1.56 2.88 1.10 3.84 7.17

9.63 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 6.14 1.19 0.00 2.99 2.13 7.61 2.21 5.11 4.43 2.71 4.65 2.69 2.82 1.96 2.97 2.59 1.10 9.39 42.81 7.02 0.57 0.00 7.41 6.47 2.80 3.81 2.70 2.20 2.05 2.86 0.00 10.80 10.46

2511 NA 0 NA 14 67 6155 635 11 45 10 203 614 4381 122 228 242 13 314 684 369 505 332 468 117 240 6098 535 8 268 23 672 686 459 NA 241 194 54 51 353 462

167

Still Living Without the Basics

UTAH (UT)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

OHULP 1990

Percent of OHULP 1990

49

2906

0.41

2163

0.40

Utah (UT)

County

Total OHU

Beaver Box Elder Cache Carbon Daggett Davis Duchesne Emery Garfield

1982 13144 27543 7413 340 71201 4559 3468 1576

168

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 18 51 44 27 2 88 57 17 5

Rural OHULP 2000

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1164

1.43

1092

1.66

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 0.92 0.47 1.25 0.00 0.42 3.58 0.51 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 5.54 0.51 0.00

57 127 103 68 NA 346 109 40 12

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.91 0.39 0.16 0.36 0.59 0.12 1.25 0.49 0.32

0.91 0.46 0.14 0.42 0.59 0.00 1.63 0.49 0.32

2.02 0.54 0.00 NA 0.00 0.10 1.19 NA 0.00

Still Living Without the Basics Utah (UT)

County Grand Iron Juab Kane Millard Morgan Piute Rich Salt Lake San Juan Sanpete Sevier Summit Tooele Uintah Utah Wasatch Washington Wayne Weber

Total OHU 3434 10627 2456 2237 3840 2046 509 645 295141 4089 6547 6081 10332 12677 8187 99937 4743 29939 890 65698

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 64 21 16 13 13 0 2 3 1074 723 39 29 9 32 30 258 10 64 10 187

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 1.86 0.20 0.65 0.58 0.34 0.00 0.39 0.47 0.36 17.68 0.60 0.48 0.09 0.25 0.37 0.26 0.21 0.21 1.12 0.28

5.62 0.38 1.48 1.10 0.32 0.00 0.39 0.47 0.94 22.12 0.78 0.56 0.11 0.70 0.70 0.51 0.35 0.28 1.12 0.25

NA 0.29 NA 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 19.29 0.66 NA 0.00 NA NA 0.08 0.00 0.20 NA 0.26

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

8.49 0.11 2.50 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 39.95 1.31 0.29 0.00 0.43 0.18 0.42 0.00 0.10 4.76 0.39

32.58 0.41 5.60 4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.08 1.43 0.45 0.00 3.10 0.31 2.79 0.00 0.56 4.76 0.00

154 58 43 36 49 0 NA 10 3253 2692 100 105 53 72 87 883 32 146 20 461

169

Still Living Without the Basics

VERMONT (VT)

Ranking 2000 24

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

1481

Vermont (VT)

County

Total OHU

Addison Bennington Caledonia Chittenden Essex Franklin Grand Isle Lamoille Orange Orleans Rutland Washington Windham Windsor

13068 14846 11663 56452 2602 16765 2761 9221 10936 10446 25678 23659 18375 24162

170

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

OHULP 1990

0.62

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 81 65 84 197 49 98 11 70 156 92 115 173 140 150

1952

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.93

Rural OHULP 2000 1215

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Rural population Percent of OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of (as % of years in Rural OHU) OHULP OHU) 0.62 0.44 0.72 0.35 1.88 0.58 0.40 0.76 1.43 0.88 0.45 0.73 0.76 0.62

0.70 0.55 0.99 0.38 1.88 0.59 0.40 0.76 1.46 1.03 0.67 1.18 1.04 0.75

0.74 0.24 0.57 0.10 1.26 0.63 NA 0.44 1.67 0.97 0.48 0.31 0.49 0.38

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.83

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

1732

1.24

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.76 0.71 1.67 0.52 2.83 0.47 0.00 1.75 3.93 1.77 0.75 1.67 0.92 2.51

3.07 0.79 2.70 0.49 2.83 0.00 0.00 1.75 3.98 2.29 1.52 3.42 1.66 3.04

138 137 190 414 86 183 16 158 356 166 252 330 284 247

Still Living Without the Basics

VIRGINIA (VA)

Ranking 2000 16

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000

19550

0.72

Virginia (VA)

County/City Accomack Albemarle Alleghany Amelia Amherst Appomattox Arlington Augusta Bath Bedford

Total OHU 15299 31876 5149 4240 11941 5322 86352 24818 2053 23838

Percent of OHULP 1990

OHULP 1990

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 404 291 76 85 124 45 516 281 31 202

35788

1.56

Rural OHULP 2000 12128

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 2.64 0.91 1.48 2.00 1.04 0.85 0.60 1.13 1.51 0.85

2.90 0.78 1.99 2.00 1.61 0.85 0.00 1.37 1.51 1.00

2.11 1.17 1.96 4.57 2.01 1.78 0.41 2.37 2.38 1.20

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.66

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

30003

4.38

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

6.77 4.00 3.42 11.58 3.15 2.90 1.71 5.12 8.52 3.10

7.44 3.08 4.64 11.58 4.55 2.90 0.00 5.94 8.52 3.50

987 491 175 161 267 60 1740 683 57 340

171

Still Living Without the Basics Virginia (VA)

County/City

Total OHU

Bland Botetourt Brunswick Buchanan Buckingham Campbell Caroline Carroll Charles City Charlotte Chesterfield Clarke Craig Culpeper Cumberland Dickenson Dinwiddie Essex Fairfax Fauquier Floyd Fluvanna Franklin Frederick Giles Gloucester Goochland Grayson Greene Greensville Halifax Hanover Henrico Henry Highland Isle of Wight James City King and Queen King George King William Lancaster Lee Loudoun Louisa Lunenburg Madison Mathews Mecklenburg Middlesex Montgomery Nelson

2568 11700 6277 10464 5324 20639 8021 12186 2670 4951 93772 4942 2060 12141 3528 6732 9107 3995 350714 19842 5791 7387 18963 22097 6994 13127 6158 7259 5574 3375 15018 31121 108121 23910 1131 11319 19003 2673 6091 4846 5004 9706 59900 9945 4998 4739 3932 12951 4253 30997 5887

172

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 47 99 174 163 161 153 197 222 73 179 256 35 37 201 59 135 156 96 1122 259 117 64 159 242 59 101 101 121 49 37 454 190 384 176 26 42 35 46 44 114 113 228 233 144 100 149 83 306 42 136 194

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 1.83 0.85 2.77 1.56 3.02 0.74 2.46 1.82 2.73 3.62 0.27 0.71 1.80 1.66 1.67 2.01 1.71 2.40 0.32 1.31 2.02 0.87 0.84 1.10 0.84 0.77 1.64 1.67 0.88 1.10 3.02 0.61 0.36 0.74 2.30 0.37 0.18 1.72 0.72 2.35 2.26 2.35 0.39 1.45 2.00 3.14 2.11 2.36 0.99 0.44 3.30

1.83 1.14 2.86 1.56 3.02 0.84 2.46 1.86 2.73 3.62 0.58 0.94 1.80 1.99 1.77 2.01 1.91 2.88 0.15 1.70 2.02 1.29 0.88 1.63 0.88 0.73 1.58 1.68 0.88 1.24 3.73 1.13 0.55 0.93 2.30 0.57 0.52 1.72 0.72 2.91 2.26 2.30 1.12 1.45 2.00 3.14 2.11 2.84 0.99 0.83 3.30

3.42 1.42 2.72 2.69 4.30 0.23 3.97 3.01 4.01 3.79 0.31 0.69 2.30 2.87 3.01 0.74 0.82 3.90 0.26 2.05 1.08 1.17 1.27 1.57 0.82 0.97 1.82 1.01 0.94 1.51 3.28 1.75 0.53 0.72 4.10 0.78 0.17 2.42 0.86 4.00 0.89 2.71 1.12 2.10 2.17 3.95 3.60 3.95 2.16 0.69 5.19

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

8.67 5.51 7.96 3.60 8.12 3.56 6.09 4.69 5.71 9.48 1.24 4.71 3.78 3.63 5.08 5.38 7.33 6.38 0.72 8.14 7.18 3.37 3.51 2.54 2.21 0.81 8.73 3.23 1.80 1.23 7.44 7.97 0.87 1.91 0.00 0.83 2.22 3.41 1.81 11.11 6.90 5.08 2.59 7.33 3.50 7.20 12.03 6.89 4.09 0.82 11.15

8.67 5.50 8.93 3.60 8.12 3.58 6.09 4.80 5.71 9.48 5.56 7.44 3.78 4.79 5.54 5.38 9.99 7.52 0.00 10.19 7.18 3.74 4.15 3.68 1.88 0.00 8.73 3.25 1.80 1.35 9.78 15.94 3.24 2.18 0.00 1.47 7.55 3.41 1.81 12.85 6.90 5.09 6.30 7.33 3.50 7.20 12.03 9.43 4.09 2.44 11.15

127 195 428 282 423 240 551 403 208 516 672 93 62 414 218 214 304 189 3291 700 193 145 213 524 112 169 153 270 90 63 1000 387 975 326 61 111 111 84 79 230 246 417 713 316 198 321 182 580 87 322 481

Still Living Without the Basics Virginia (VA)

County/City

Total OHU

New Kent Northampton Northumberland Nottoway Orange Page Patrick Pittsylvania Powhatan Prince Edward Prince George Prince William Pulaski Rappahannock Richmond Roanoke Hanover Henrico Henry Highland Isle of Wight James City King and Queen King George King William Lancaster Lee Loudoun Louisa Lunenburg Madison Mathews Mecklenburg Middlesex Montgomery Nelson New Kent Northampton Northumberland Nottoway Orange Page Patrick Pittsylvania Powhatan Prince Edward Prince George Prince William Pulaski Rappahannock Richmond

4925 5321 5470 5664 10150 9305 8141 24684 7258 6561 10159 94570 14643 2788 2937 34686 31121 108121 23910 1131 11319 19003 2673 6091 4846 5004 9706 59900 9945 4998 4739 3932 12951 4253 30997 5887 4925 5321 5470 5664 10150 9305 8141 24684 7258 6561 10159 94570 14643 2788 2937

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 14 245 158 87 96 154 88 440 76 102 36 250 156 78 78 103 190 384 176 26 42 35 46 44 114 113 228 233 144 100 149 83 306 42 136 194 14 245 158 87 96 154 88 440 76 102 36 250 156 78 78

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.28 4.60 2.89 1.54 0.95 1.66 1.08 1.78 1.05 1.55 0.35 0.26 1.07 2.80 2.66 0.30 0.61 0.36 0.74 2.30 0.37 0.18 1.72 0.72 2.35 2.26 2.35 0.39 1.45 2.00 3.14 2.11 2.36 0.99 0.44 3.30 0.28 4.60 2.89 1.54 0.95 1.66 1.08 1.78 1.05 1.55 0.35 0.26 1.07 2.80 2.66

0.28 4.60 2.89 2.24 1.44 1.84 1.08 1.95 1.05 1.84 0.17 0.57 1.46 2.80 3.12 0.49 1.13 0.55 0.93 2.30 0.57 0.52 1.72 0.72 2.91 2.26 2.30 1.12 1.45 2.00 3.14 2.11 2.84 0.99 0.83 3.30 0.28 4.60 2.89 2.24 1.44 1.84 1.08 1.95 1.05 1.84 0.17 0.57 1.46 2.80 3.12

0.92 2.76 1.80 1.08 0.96 2.15 1.67 1.82 1.61 2.34 0.46 0.25 1.36 1.76 0.85 0.33 1.75 0.53 0.72 4.10 0.78 0.17 2.42 0.86 4.00 0.89 2.71 1.12 2.10 2.17 3.95 3.60 3.95 2.16 0.69 5.19 0.92 2.76 1.80 1.08 0.96 2.15 1.67 1.82 1.61 2.34 0.46 0.25 1.36 1.76 0.85

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.82 10.73 7.55 1.55 2.33 5.96 2.77 6.08 3.15 2.14 2.48 0.94 3.59 4.64 9.20 0.79 7.97 0.87 1.91 0.00 0.83 2.22 3.41 1.81 11.11 6.90 5.08 2.59 7.33 3.50 7.20 12.03 6.89 4.09 0.82 11.15 2.82 10.73 7.55 1.55 2.33 5.96 2.77 6.08 3.15 2.14 2.48 0.94 3.59 4.64 9.20

2.82 10.73 7.55 2.93 3.52 6.89 2.77 6.44 3.15 2.22 2.13 9.50 6.96 4.64 11.22 0.00 15.94 3.24 2.18 0.00 1.47 7.55 3.41 1.81 12.85 6.90 5.09 6.30 7.33 3.50 7.20 12.03 9.43 4.09 2.44 11.15 2.82 10.73 7.55 2.93 3.52 6.89 2.77 6.44 3.15 2.22 2.13 9.50 6.96 4.64 11.22

20 601 361 271 223 244 194 804 180 194 89 848 332 184 182 277 387 975 326 61 111 111 84 79 230 246 417 713 316 198 321 182 580 87 322 481 20 601 361 271 223 244 194 804 180 194 89 848 332 184 182

173

Still Living Without the Basics Virginia (VA)

County/City Roanoke Rockbridge Rockingham Russell Scott Shenandoah Smyth Southampton Spotsylvania Stafford Surry Sussex Tazewell Warren Washington Westmoreland Wise Wythe York Alexandria City Bedford City Bristol City Buena Vista City Charlottesville City Chesapeake City Clifton Forge City Colonial Heights City Covington City Danville City Emporia City Fairfax City Falls Church City Franklin City Fredericksburg City Galax City Hampton City Harrisonburg City Hopewell City Lexington City Lynchburg City Manassas City Manassas Park City Martinsville City Newport News City Norfolk City Norton City Petersburg City Poquoson City Portsmouth City Radford City Richmond City

174

Total OHU 34686 8486 25355 11789 9795 14296 13493 6279 31308 30187 2619 4126 18277 12087 21056 6846 16013 11511 20000 61889 2519 7678 2547 16851 69900 1841 7027 2835 20607 2226 8035 4471 3384 8102 2950 53887 13133 9055 2232 25477 11757 3254 6498 69686 86210 1730 13799 4166 38170 5809 84549

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 103 188 405 197 302 290 136 263 168 71 53 116 203 147 245 198 112 148 17 295 35 8 0 67 284 0 6 15 173 0 24 15 6 15 32 107 64 26 0 52 5 11 24 381 560 5 114 7 214 9 454

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.30 2.22 1.60 1.67 3.08 2.03 1.01 4.19 0.54 0.24 2.02 2.81 1.11 1.22 1.16 2.89 0.70 1.29 0.09 0.48 1.39 0.10 0.00 0.40 0.41 0.00 0.09 0.53 0.84 0.00 0.30 0.34 0.18 0.19 1.08 0.20 0.49 0.29 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.34 0.37 0.55 0.65 0.29 0.83 0.17 0.56 0.15 0.54

0.49 2.30 2.21 1.91 3.74 2.41 1.19 4.28 1.08 0.45 2.02 2.81 1.56 2.05 1.62 3.99 1.03 1.54 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.33 3.20 2.88 3.28 2.50 3.21 1.83 4.79 0.70 1.23 1.66 1.59 1.45 0.94 1.25 2.54 0.40 1.66 NA 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.68 0.00 0.34 NA 0.44 0.00 0.42 0.00 NA 0.00 1.41 0.20 0.60 NA 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.41 0.44 NA 0.49 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.38

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.79 5.65 5.21 3.67 7.93 5.79 2.77 13.10 4.15 1.92 5.44 7.48 2.09 2.43 2.98 7.90 1.69 5.27 1.20 2.50 5.05 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.65 0.00 0.00 2.24 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.62 1.24 1.04 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.11 0.96 1.28 1.72 0.00 0.78 0.50 1.04

0.00 6.34 7.49 4.24 9.35 7.13 3.73 13.10 9.39 2.60 5.44 7.48 2.44 7.93 4.05 12.24 3.11 8.27 14.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

277 395 936 345 647 612 251 571 389 204 149 216 406 226 519 557 240 231 29 889 46 30 0 107 807 0 18 18 343 0 150 35 10 74 72 228 208 46 0 79 17 22 29 962 1458 NA 368 7 607 42 1022

Still Living Without the Basics Virginia (VA)

County/City

Total OHU

Roanoke City Salem City Staunton City Suffolk City Virginia Beach City Waynesboro City Williamsburg City Winchester City

42003 9954 9676 23283 154455 8332 3619 10001

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 215 9 21 207 433 45 7 17

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 0.51 0.09 0.22 0.89 0.28 0.54 0.19 0.17

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.43 0.00 0.65 1.24 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.32 0.00 0.00 3.78 0.64 0.67 0.00 0.70

0.00 0.00 0.00 11.49 6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

341 18 55 457 1046 88 26 24

175

Still Living Without the Basics

WASHINGTON (WA)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

28

12457

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.55

Washington (WA)

10128

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.54

Rural OHULP 2000 4066

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Adams Asotin Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Douglas Ferry

5229 8364 52866 25021 27164 127208 1687 35850 11726 2823

176

OHULP 1990

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 18 45 200 228 220 433 16 128 105 128

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.05

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

5016

1.22

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.34 0.54 0.38 0.91 0.81 0.34 0.95 0.36 0.90 4.53

0.44 2.10 0.68 1.14 1.36 0.53 1.23 0.43 1.96 4.53

0.00 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.26 0.97 0.18 0.89 1.33

1.17 0.73 1.62 2.58 1.70 1.08 0.00 0.80 2.70 9.07

2.73 13.79 0.00 2.80 2.58 0.69 0.00 1.58 4.24 9.07

53 93 658 751 510 918 23 260 301 226

Still Living Without the Basics Washington (WA)

Occupied Housing Units (OHU)

County

Total OHU

Franklin Garfield Grant Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap Kittitas Klickitat Lewis Lincoln Mason Okanogan Pacific Pend Oreille Pierce San Juan Skagit Skamania Snohomish Spokane Stevens Thurston Wahkiakum Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima

14840 987 25204 26808 27784 11645 710916 86416 13382 7473 26306 4151 18912 15027 9096 4639 260800 6466 38852 3755 224852 163611 15017 81625 1553 19647 64446 15257 73993

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 89 9 194 156 136 208 3662 329 105 83 186 17 125 415 66 151 952 260 299 56 854 829 323 362 22 105 292 53 598

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU)

Percent of population above 65 years in OHULP

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.60 0.91 0.77 0.58 0.49 1.79 0.52 0.38 0.78 1.11 0.71 0.41 0.66 2.76 0.73 3.26 0.37 4.02 0.77 1.49 0.38 0.51 2.15 0.44 1.42 0.53 0.45 0.35 0.81

1.08 0.91 0.67 0.80 0.72 1.73 0.76 0.43 0.49 1.29 0.82 0.41 0.76 3.34 1.06 3.26 0.63 4.02 1.42 1.49 1.10 0.48 2.69 0.66 1.42 0.30 0.81 0.32 0.77

0.22 2.13 0.61 0.46 0.14 0.35 0.29 0.33 0.72 1.22 0.43 0.00 0.14 1.04 0.31 3.25 0.27 1.73 0.10 NA 0.30 0.35 1.06 0.37 1.62 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.31

1.59 1.61 2.46 1.31 2.83 6.02 1.63 0.85 1.52 1.36 1.65 1.20 2.61 6.17 1.62 5.79 1.05 9.79 2.48 4.14 1.10 1.72 5.94 1.56 1.57 0.75 1.08 0.42 2.20

6.51 1.61 2.55 2.62 2.86 5.29 3.03 2.41 0.79 2.83 2.37 1.20 2.64 7.57 1.19 5.79 2.17 9.79 4.19 4.14 5.57 1.21 7.15 1.47 1.57 0.00 3.15 0.39 2.14

344 18 534 351 268 340 7606 683 166 137 406 52 253 1029 107 302 2420 504 828 101 1982 1414 813 685 32 307 665 107 2025

177

Still Living Without the Basics

WEST VIRGINIA (WV)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

5

7451

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 1.01

West Virginia (WV)

County

Total OHU

Barbour Berkeley Boone Braxton Brooke Cabell Calhoun Clay Doddridge

6123 29569 10291 5771 10396 41180 3071 4020 2845

178

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 139 133 116 207 41 170 134 89 98

OHULP 1990 15972

Percent of OHULP 1990 2.32

Rural OHULP 2000 5896

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 2.27 0.45 1.13 3.59 0.39 0.41 4.36 2.21 3.44

2.72 0.36 1.17 3.59 0.46 0.77 4.36 2.21 3.44

3.37 0.31 1.81 2.20 NA 0.33 7.21 3.14 4.09

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 1.55

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

14925

3.55

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.58 1.56 2.42 9.31 1.09 0.78 9.84 4.11 9.91

5.93 1.59 2.76 9.31 1.75 1.94 9.84 4.11 9.91

256 279 253 463 70 444 235 155 242

Still Living Without the Basics West Virginia (WV)

County

Total OHU

Fayette Gilmer Grant Greenbrier Hampshire Hancock Hardy Harrison Jackson Jefferson Kanawha Lewis Lincoln Logan McDowell Marion Marshall Mason Mercer Mineral Mingo Monongalia Monroe Morgan Nicholas Ohio Pendleton Pleasants Pocahontas Preston Putnam Raleigh Randolph Ritchie Roane Summers Taylor Tucker Tyler Upshur Wayne Webster Wetzel Wirt Wood Wyoming

18945 2768 4591 14571 7955 13678 5204 27867 11061 16165 86226 6946 8664 14880 11169 23652 14207 10587 26509 10784 11303 33446 5447 6145 10722 19733 3350 2887 3835 11544 20028 31793 11072 4184 6161 5530 6320 3052 3836 8972 17239 4010 7164 2284 36275 10454

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 255 14 65 174 184 58 166 142 130 79 494 92 210 108 186 152 89 135 213 51 141 189 102 66 149 67 109 49 95 163 167 287 122 104 162 125 49 36 59 194 241 184 83 59 172 153

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Rural Percent of OHULP Percent of population (as % of above 65 OHULP (as % of Rural years in OHU) OHU) OHULP 1.35 0.51 1.42 1.19 2.31 0.42 3.19 0.51 1.18 0.49 0.57 1.32 2.42 0.73 1.67 0.64 0.63 1.28 0.80 0.47 1.25 0.57 1.87 1.07 1.39 0.34 3.25 1.70 2.48 1.41 0.83 0.90 1.10 2.49 2.63 2.26 0.78 1.18 1.54 2.16 1.40 4.59 1.16 2.58 0.47 1.46

1.87 0.51 1.77 1.50 2.31 0.35 3.19 0.65 1.12 0.69 0.93 1.69 2.42 0.70 1.79 0.65 0.96 1.66 1.31 0.57 1.22 0.85 1.89 1.07 1.73 0.53 3.25 2.88 2.48 1.53 1.42 1.53 1.58 2.49 3.18 2.85 1.10 1.18 2.00 3.24 2.10 4.59 2.23 2.58 0.82 1.57

1.76 0.00 1.19 1.51 3.62 0.35 5.81 0.78 1.23 0.92 0.68 2.04 1.02 0.84 1.35 0.73 0.54 0.32 0.73 0.64 1.68 0.73 2.17 1.73 2.32 0.40 5.75 2.33 4.29 1.86 0.65 1.05 1.34 2.90 2.81 1.48 1.80 1.85 0.93 3.59 1.21 4.50 1.12 3.56 0.56 1.88

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.81 0.86 4.81 3.22 4.08 1.56 8.65 1.41 3.30 1.84 1.41 3.66 5.10 1.67 3.52 0.82 1.62 3.85 1.41 1.32 1.87 0.87 5.15 1.91 3.16 1.13 8.77 7.27 6.32 3.17 3.15 2.46 3.79 8.81 6.08 3.80 3.03 4.53 4.01 4.71 2.65 8.53 3.92 7.08 1.35 2.99

5.54 0.86 6.34 4.03 4.08 0.00 8.65 2.47 3.58 3.73 2.61 4.72 5.10 1.95 3.60 0.76 3.42 6.00 2.35 1.95 2.18 1.62 5.25 1.91 4.05 1.28 8.77 16.36 6.32 3.66 6.24 4.62 5.85 8.81 8.34 4.47 4.79 4.53 5.84 7.92 3.83 8.53 7.35 7.08 3.67 3.37

469 20 160 278 329 91 290 253 181 209 973 235 397 219 395 242 234 232 339 107 320 380 240 116 271 105 234 78 151 329 345 621 197 170 305 243 104 67 92 405 467 325 166 182 384 300

179

Still Living Without the Basics

WISCONSIN (WI)

Ranking 2000 36

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 10648

Wisconsin (WI)

County Adams Ashland Barron Bayfield Brown Buffalo Burnett Calumet Chippewa Clark

180

Total OHU 7900 6718 17851 6207 87295 5511 6613 14910 21356 12047

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.51

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 51 107 129 146 286 58 80 28 103 227

OHULP 1990 11780

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.65

Rural OHULP 2000 4879

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.65 1.59 0.72 2.35 0.33 1.05 1.21 0.19 0.48 1.88

0.65 2.15 1.03 2.35 0.45 1.05 1.21 0.39 0.63 2.05

0.32 0.53 0.91 1.05 0.29 1.07 1.12 0.22 0.62 1.25

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.77

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

7115

1.20

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

2.21 4.56 3.01 5.31 0.65 4.22 3.47 0.00 1.39 8.04

2.21 5.84 4.49 5.31 0.50 4.22 3.47 0.00 1.70 8.74

106 209 345 274 619 150 142 65 275 1150

Still Living Without the Basics Wisconsin (WI)

County

Total OHU

Columbia Crawford Dane Dodge Door Douglas Dunn Eau Claire Florence Fond du Lac Forest Grant Green Green Lake Iowa Iron Jackson Jefferson Juneau Kenosha Kewaunee La Crosse Lafayette Langlade Lincoln Manitowoc Marathon Marinette Marquette Menominee Milwaukee Monroe Oconto Oneida Outagamie Ozaukee Pepin Pierce Polk Portage Price Racine Richland Rock Rusk St. Croix Sauk Sawyer Shawano Sheboygan Taylor Trempealeau Vernon

20439 6677 173484 31417 11828 17808 14337 35822 2133 36931 4043 18465 13212 7703 8764 3083 7070 28205 9696 56057 7623 41599 6211 8452 11721 32721 47702 17585 5986 1345 377729 15399 13979 15333 60530 30857 2759 13015 16254 25040 6564 70819 7118 58617 6095 23410 21644 6640 15815 43545 7529 10747 10825

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 86 90 645 109 26 143 102 233 35 83 46 84 26 45 39 19 64 75 59 145 37 109 22 71 73 112 248 159 44 10 2683 299 69 101 82 48 25 51 93 143 99 221 72 205 64 82 93 77 105 156 122 86 396

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.42 1.35 0.37 0.35 0.22 0.80 0.71 0.65 1.64 0.22 1.14 0.45 0.20 0.58 0.45 0.62 0.91 0.27 0.61 0.26 0.49 0.26 0.35 0.84 0.62 0.34 0.52 0.90 0.74 0.74 0.71 1.94 0.49 0.66 0.14 0.16 0.91 0.39 0.57 0.57 1.51 0.31 1.01 0.35 1.05 0.35 0.43 1.16 0.66 0.36 1.62 0.80 3.66

0.51 2.13 0.26 0.30 0.32 1.76 0.80 1.99 1.64 0.41 1.14 0.50 0.30 0.78 0.55 0.91 1.16 0.37 0.59 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.35 1.19 0.85 0.39 0.64 1.38 0.74 0.74 0.00 3.53 0.57 0.77 0.14 0.18 0.91 0.54 0.62 0.79 1.51 0.20 1.37 0.27 1.26 0.36 0.80 1.16 0.62 0.31 2.17 0.80 4.33

0.62 0.92 0.17 0.26 0.43 1.03 0.40 0.52 1.45 0.34 0.84 0.61 NA 0.48 0.43 0.73 0.75 0.52 0.37 0.10 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.88 0.75 0.26 0.61 0.93 0.26 NA 0.45 1.10 0.57 0.76 0.25 0.20 1.08 0.24 0.41 0.95 1.59 0.14 0.76 0.26 1.31 0.87 0.65 0.75 0.74 0.19 1.63 0.95 1.65

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

1.32 4.50 1.50 1.81 0.77 1.23 2.05 2.69 6.07 1.09 2.42 1.13 0.88 1.79 1.91 0.00 2.69 0.55 1.66 0.83 1.84 0.57 0.70 2.15 2.51 2.16 2.20 1.98 3.70 0.60 2.10 11.17 1.54 1.03 0.61 0.00 4.12 0.63 2.14 1.65 5.77 0.98 4.00 1.35 2.96 0.37 1.78 3.27 1.76 1.06 7.63 4.40 14.51

2.51 6.30 1.40 0.75 1.26 4.67 3.00 15.07 6.07 2.60 2.42 0.82 0.58 2.56 2.28 0.00 3.97 1.70 1.39 0.00 2.26 3.05 0.70 2.88 5.19 2.26 2.26 3.44 3.70 0.60 0.00 23.02 2.22 1.63 1.32 0.00 4.12 1.49 2.32 4.12 5.77 0.79 6.83 0.54 2.85 0.81 4.58 3.27 2.58 3.44 10.31 4.40 18.37

239 203 1340 232 49 268 184 1021 55 159 70 210 65 182 53 45 170 150 131 504 65 484 58 151 125 261 713 230 115 36 6003 1529 114 221 199 71 100 75 168 474 195 550 209 483 141 215 380 136 221 515 397 231 1958

181

Still Living Without the Basics Wisconsin (WI)

County Vilas Walworth Washburn Washington Waukesha Waupaca Waushara Winnebago Wood

182

Total OHU 9066 34522 6604 43842 135229 19863 9336 61157 30135

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 44 114 54 107 270 111 62 192 68

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.33 0.25 0.42 0.82 0.99 0.85 0.24 0.33 0.11 0.20 0.13 0.22 0.56 0.59 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.47 0.31 0.42 0.52 0.23 0.43 0.25

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.38 1.28 1.78 0.44 0.40 1.53 3.02 0.71 0.50

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 1.38 1.15 2.31 2.11 0.00 2.62 3.04 1.20 2.12

Total population in OHULP 74 190 71 204 659 238 184 378 212

Still Living Without the Basics

WYOMING (WY)

Ranking 2000 33

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000 1011

Wyoming (WY)

County

Total OHU

Albany Big Horn Campbell Carbon Converse Crook Fremont

13269 4312 12207 6129 4694 2308 13545

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 0.52

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 68 31 61 19 21 4 192

OHULP 1990 897

Percent of OHULP 1990 0.53

Rural OHULP 2000 590

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population OHULP Rural OHULP above 65 years in (as % of (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.51 0.72 0.50 0.31 0.45 0.17 1.42

1.35 0.72 0.79 0.32 0.63 0.17 2.74

0.00 NA 1.87 0.00 NA NA 1.30

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 0.92

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

609

1.08

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.69 2.42 0.52 0.25 0.00 0.00 3.69

0.00 2.42 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 6.26

78 84 153 66 80 NA 430

183

Still Living Without the Basics Wyoming (WY)

County

Total OHU

Goshen Hot Springs Johnson Laramie Lincoln Natrona Niobrara Park Platte Sheridan Sublette Sweetwater Teton Uinta Washakie Weston

5061 2108 2959 31927 5266 26819 1011 10312 3625 11167 2371 14105 7688 6823 3278 2624

184

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 0 20 6 91 22 156 17 49 33 62 18 51 67 10 2 11

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of population above 65 OHULP Rural OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.29 0.42 0.58 1.68 0.48 0.91 0.56 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.15 0.06 0.42

0.00 1.00 0.45 0.06 0.49 1.89 1.68 0.51 1.18 0.97 0.76 1.46 0.99 0.37 0.20 0.77

0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.13 1.98 0.37 NA 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

0.00 0.00 1.80 0.82 2.71 1.37 4.83 1.98 0.51 1.38 3.86 1.80 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 3.77 0.00 3.37 7.25 4.83 3.34 0.76 2.59 3.86 9.20 4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 23 8 186 47 266 42 154 45 64 65 110 129 35 NA 13

Still Living Without the Basics

PUERTO RICO (PR)

Ranking 2000

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 2000

2

65640

Puerto Rico (PR)

Municipio

Total OHU

Adjuntas Aguada Aguadilla Aguas Buenas Aibonito Añasco Arecibo Arroyo Barceloneta Barranquitas Bayamón Cabo Rojo Caguas Camuy Canóvanas Carolina Cataño

5895 13520 22087 9240 8408 9398 34245 6166 7508 8663 73693 17114 46937 11457 13446 63546 9638

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 2000 5.20

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 226 1380 1068 474 270 657 2034 366 1221 317 1294 1067 1573 500 1099 1820 363

OHULP 1990 NA

Percent of OHULP 1990 NA

Rural OHULP 2000 5673

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP OHULP above 65 (as % of years in (as % of OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 3.83 10.21 4.84 5.13 3.21 6.99 5.94 5.94 16.26 3.66 1.76 6.23 3.35 4.36 8.17 2.86 3.77

3.82 0.00 0.00 6.81 3.96 7.95 8.07 18.03 19.54 5.85 0.00 7.81 3.86 9.97 13.83 0.00 0.00

5.44 10.47 5.32 7.20 4.80 7.13 6.51 6.79 13.84 4.87 1.95 5.09 3.73 4.17 8.75 3.05 3.46

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 2000 8.47

Rural OHULP 1990

Percent of Rural OHULP (as % of Rural OHU) 1990

NA

NA

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

4.42 12.44 6.15 5.29 4.45 9.56 7.75 7.45 20.64 3.89 2.76 9.43 5.38 5.74 10.37 5.15 5.03

3.85 0.00 0.00 4.79 5.20 11.00 10.82 22.73 0.00 8.73 0.00 10.84 3.47 14.02 24.05 0.00 0.00

651 4014 2770 1251 773 1754 5232 1189 3537 959 3829 2849 4535 1230 3286 5097 1284

185

Still Living Without the Basics Puerto Rico (PR)

Municipio Cayey Ceiba Ciales Cidra Coamo Comerío Corozal Culebra Dorado Fajardo Florida Guánica Guayama Guayanilla Guaynabo Gurabo Hatillo Hormigueros Humacao Isabela Jayuya Juana Díaz Juncos Lajas Lares Las Marías Las Piedras Loíza Luquillo Manatí Maricao Maunabo Mayagüez Moca Morovis Naguabo Naranjito Orocovis Patillas Peñuelas Ponce Quebradillas Rincón Río Grande Sabana Grande Salinas San Germán San Juan San Lorenzo San Sebastián Santa Isabel Toa Alta Toa Baja Trujillo Alto

186

Total OHU 15634 5750 6047 13204 11749 6311 11264 699 10887 14176 3962 7291 14225 7209 34068 11741 12685 5820 19293 14970 5083 14954 11933 9007 10974 3564 11145 9597 6573 15266 2013 3994 34742 12712 8801 7872 8932 7083 6576 7698 59607 8280 5147 16430 8865 10184 12809 163462 13138 14970 6781 19420 30453 24160

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 405 206 395 493 584 197 526 40 584 447 235 672 1036 642 860 542 670 231 927 945 259 1271 634 630 814 332 365 495 271 653 127 418 2221 778 541 329 378 366 559 763 4198 418 340 1010 535 759 689 6358 1102 1356 533 582 1440 1251

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 2.59 3.58 6.53 3.73 4.97 3.12 4.67 5.72 5.36 3.15 5.93 9.22 7.28 8.91 2.52 4.62 5.28 3.97 4.80 6.31 5.10 8.50 5.31 6.99 7.42 9.32 3.28 5.16 4.12 4.28 6.31 10.47 6.39 6.12 6.15 4.18 4.23 5.17 8.50 9.91 7.04 5.05 6.61 6.15 6.03 7.45 5.38 3.89 8.39 9.06 7.86 3.00 4.73 5.18

5.74 6.47 7.03 5.03 5.65 3.49 6.04 5.72 0.00 4.35 6.99 10.15 9.87 9.47 25.00 5.85 5.97 15.79 9.23 8.70 6.87 11.31 0.00 9.74 11.42 12.52 5.32 13.64 4.39 3.47 7.78 14.05 11.50 9.89 8.53 6.90 0.00 6.39 11.07 22.95 8.98 5.61 0.00 2.55 9.74 7.60 5.15 0.00 7.99 10.96 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.41 4.76 6.44 4.09 6.67 1.36 7.14 NA 5.13 3.16 8.85 8.19 8.57 9.40 2.49 3.78 6.10 3.27 4.00 8.95 5.82 9.93 8.28 5.80 6.22 10.24 3.82 5.51 7.38 5.35 7.59 8.95 6.17 7.16 6.42 5.52 6.27 5.38 8.25 7.20 5.88 7.19 5.27 6.91 6.17 8.86 5.07 3.22 9.25 9.29 10.70 5.13 5.20 4.02

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999

Total population in OHULP

3.69 5.11 8.27 4.61 5.75 3.54 5.87 4.00 8.01 4.44 7.30 10.67 9.58 11.87 4.79 8.30 6.19 6.18 6.94 7.68 5.82 11.12 6.29 9.22 8.56 13.06 3.58 6.30 6.07 5.64 7.29 12.39 8.08 7.53 8.03 4.51 5.68 6.29 10.42 12.79 10.18 6.80 7.45 7.93 7.59 9.27 7.61 6.09 10.47 10.87 9.56 5.40 7.30 10.12

6.58 11.82 7.69 5.40 6.23 2.82 7.96 4.00 0.00 0.00 9.02 6.31 10.98 14.15 50.00 10.42 8.80 0.00 0.00 5.43 6.43 12.79 0.00 13.48 11.90 17.29 9.19 13.64 3.45 3.10 9.95 22.09 17.15 14.54 10.40 7.87 0.00 6.83 12.03 32.26 11.46 5.18 0.00 3.02 13.04 11.16 6.18 0.00 8.81 12.26 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00

1067 595 1195 1547 1695 556 1444 106 1693 1045 575 1981 2826 1652 2489 1318 1875 674 2670 2756 917 3844 1651 1553 2481 920 1303 1482 838 1981 354 1225 5905 2199 1794 910 1013 967 1664 2775 12979 1143 1029 2713 1566 2264 1715 17663 3339 3607 1383 1912 4306 3552

Still Living Without the Basics Puerto Rico (PR)

Municipio Utuado Vega Alta Vega Baja Vieques Villalba Yabucoa Yauco

Total OHU 11207 11894 19758 3319 7722 12242 15012

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (OHULP) 666 1268 1199 230 572 877 1687

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Percent of Percent of Percent of Rural population OHULP above 65 OHULP (as % of (as % of years in OHU) Rural OHU) OHULP 5.94 5.71 5.36 10.66 4.17 10.80 6.07 12.23 11.05 6.93 14.94 10.08 7.41 12.25 9.25 7.16 14.55 8.31 11.24 21.07 9.96

Percent of OHULP below poverty level in 1999 7.14 14.26 8.44 7.43 9.49 9.18 16.15

Percent of Rural OHULP below poverty level in 1999 7.35 7.74 15.56 10.00 15.12 14.51 24.26

Total population in OHULP 1833 3987 3494 644 2069 2875 5292

187

Still Living Without the Basics

American Samoa (AS)

American Samoa (AS)

District/Village Eastern District Eastern District, Rural Manu'a District Manu'a District, Rural Rose Island Rose Island, Rural Swains Island Swains Island, Rural Western District Western District, Rural Village Aasu Village Afao Village Afono Village Agugulu Village

188

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total (OHULP) OHU) Level in 1999

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

4111 382 323 323 0 0 8 8 5610 551

1829 74 7 7 0 0 0 0 1956 3

2069 290 302 302 0 0 7 7 3359 493

213 18 14 14 0 0 1 1 295 55

3845 339 273 273 0 0 7 7 5224 491

1397 146 86 86 0 0 6 6 2070 262

36.33 43.07 31.50 31.50 0.00 0.00 85.71 85.71 39.62 53.36

1028 113 59 59 0 0 4 4 1657 209

57 23 109 8

1 0 0 0

51 22 104 7

5 1 5 1

50 22 90 7

31 9 40 2

62.00 40.91 44.44 28.57

28 8 31 1

Total HU

Still Living Without the Basics American Samoa (AS)

District/Village Alao Village Alega Village Alofau Village Amaluia Village Amanave Village Amaua Village Amouli Village Anua Village Aoa Village Aoloau Village Asili Village Atu'u Village Aua Village Auasi Village Aumi Village Aunu'u Village Auto Village Avaio Village Faga'alu Village Faga'itua Village Fagali'i Village Fagamalo Village Faganeanea Village Fagasa Village Fagatogo Village Failolo Village Faleasao Village Faleniu Village Fatumafuti Village Futiga Village Ili'ili Village Lauli'i Village Leloaloa Village Leone Village Leusoali'i Village Luma Village Maia Village Malaeimi Village Malaeloa/Aitulagi Village Malaeloa/Ituau Village Maloata Village Mapusagafou Village Masausi Village Masefau Village Matu'u Village Mesepa Village Nua Village Nu'uuli Village Ofu Village Olosega Village Onenoa Village Pagai Village

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal Total HU 104 13 86 41 58 23 76 11 96 162 36 59 386 19 37 88 45 9 204 90 48 14 31 137 359 21 37 315 19 105 470 155 93 600 34 58 30 189 93 87 5 285 35 73 71 80 28 905 75 62 29 20

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

9 3 1 0 0 7 0 8 3 1 0 53 22 0 1 59 4 0 130 12 0 0 3 35 319 0 1 91 6 3 91 2 9 29 0 2 1 85 1 0 0 17 0 2 6 69 0 727 0 0 0 1

92 9 83 36 50 16 71 3 74 145 33 4 334 17 34 25 36 8 64 73 39 13 27 91 33 17 34 212 10 99 354 145 76 547 34 56 26 90 90 85 5 249 22 66 64 9 27 136 71 58 29 18

3 1 2 5 8 0 5 0 19 16 3 2 30 2 2 4 5 1 10 5 9 1 1 11 7 4 2 12 3 3 25 8 8 24 0 0 3 14 2 2 0 19 13 5 1 2 1 42 4 4 0 1

93 13 84 36 52 20 74 9 83 136 34 58 347 17 35 79 42 9 195 82 44 9 29 130 351 20 29 308 16 104 423 153 81 577 32 52 25 179 90 86 4 272 32 68 70 73 26 868 63 48 26 20

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total OHU) Level in 1999 (OHULP) 52 4 30 18 38 7 28 3 56 58 14 23 126 7 13 40 12 1 66 28 27 5 8 53 96 13 5 171 6 43 136 69 27 170 10 8 8 87 33 38 2 129 21 33 4 26 12 332 15 34 17 11

55.91 30.77 35.71 50.00 73.08 35.00 37.84 33.33 67.47 42.65 41.18 39.66 36.31 41.18 37.14 50.63 28.57 11.11 33.85 34.15 61.36 55.56 27.59 40.77 27.35 65.00 17.24 55.52 37.50 41.35 32.15 45.10 33.33 29.46 31.25 15.38 32.00 48.60 36.67 44.19 50.00 47.43 65.63 48.53 5.71 35.62 46.15 38.25 23.81 70.83 65.38 55.00

41 2 19 12 29 6 20 2 44 46 11 16 86 5 11 31 6 0 48 17 24 4 6 44 74 11 3 146 4 30 103 54 16 129 7 7 3 76 25 26 2 116 14 24 3 20 8 259 13 22 11 7

189

Still Living Without the Basics American Samoa (AS)

District/Village Pago Pago Village Pava'ia'i Village Poloa Village Sa'ilele Village Se'etaga Village Sili Village Si'ufaga Village Swains Village Tafuna Village Taputimu Village Tula Village Utulei Village Utumea East Village Utumea West Village Vailoatai Village Vaitogi Village

190

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal Total HU 742 401 37 18 44 5 22 8 1488 100 81 158 13 9 159 243

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

579 47 0 0 0 0 3 0 1174 8 3 148 0 1 3 12

140 319 34 16 43 4 19 7 268 84 73 7 13 7 147 217

23 35 3 2 1 1 0 1 46 8 5 3 0 1 9 14

708 357 36 18 41 2 22 7 1362 97 75 141 13 8 158 228

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total OHU) Level in 1999 (OHULP) 226 150 24 12 15 2 4 6 446 44 35 32 5 2 62 96

31.92 42.02 66.67 66.67 36.59 100.00 18.18 85.71 32.75 45.36 46.67 22.70 38.46 25.00 39.24 42.11

169 117 18 7 12 2 2 4 348 36 29 24 4 2 52 75

Still Living Without the Basics

Guam (GU)

Guam (GU)

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total (OHULP) OHU) Level in 1999

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

47677 2946

34067 1559

12443 1255

1167 132

38769 2309

3411 321

8.80 13.90

944 102

1126 1041 1072 1379 312 1459 1083 325 841 902 857

945 957 1048 1347 247 1012 484 293 301 843 791

180 65 15 17 63 352 576 29 489 49 61

1 19 9 15 2 95 23 3 51 10 5

995 906 938 751 272 1167 1004 292 697 756 464

81 95 6 2 14 177 123 21 90 71 3

8.14 10.49 0.64 0.27 5.15 15.17 12.25 7.19 12.91 9.39 0.65

8 23 0 0 1 100 24 3 28 12 1

County/Census Designated Place

Total HU

Guam Guam, Rural Census Designated Place Agana Heights Agat Andersen AFB Apra Harbor Asan Astumbo Barrigada Barrigada Heights Chalan Pago Dededo Finegayan Station

191

Still Living Without the Basics Guam (GU)

County/Census Designated Place Hagåtña Inarajan Latte Heights Maina Maite Mangilao Merizo Mongmong Nimitz Hill Annex Ordot Piti Santa Rita Santa Rosa Sinajana Talofofo Tamuning Tiyan Toto Umatac Yigo Yona

192

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal Total HU 403 148 410 246 303 2463 390 1207 64 1079 212 311 144 578 556 4735 2 592 115 1841 532

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

374 64 347 71 295 1675 324 964 61 477 177 254 140 562 174 4478 0 318 94 1032 355

27 76 60 171 8 742 57 226 3 563 28 47 3 14 342 230 2 253 16 753 158

2 8 3 4 0 46 9 17 0 39 7 10 1 2 40 27 0 21 5 56 19

276 134 373 231 171 1883 341 958 14 876 185 279 130 518 497 3550 2 504 104 1515 470

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total OHU) Level in 1999 (OHULP) 13 23 30 19 2 127 40 62 1 71 24 37 8 37 89 116 0 83 18 111 62

4.71 17.16 8.04 8.23 1.17 6.74 11.73 6.47 7.14 8.11 12.97 13.26 6.15 7.14 17.91 3.27 0.00 16.47 17.31 7.33 13.19

5 6 3 3 0 23 9 18 0 22 6 6 1 5 27 23 0 18 6 35 18

Still Living Without the Basics

Northern Mariana Islands (MP)

193

Still Living Without the Basics

Northern Mariana Islands (MP) continued

No. Mariana Is. (MP)

Municipality/Census Designated Place Northern Islands Municipality Northern Islands Municipality, Rural Rota Municipality Rota Municipality, Rural Saipan Municipality Saipan Municipality, Rural Tinian Municipality Tinian Municipality, Rural Census Designated Place Capital Hill Chalan Kanoa Dandan Garapan Gualo Rai

194

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total OHU) Level in 1999 (OHULP)

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

3

2

1

0

1

0

0.00

0

3 981 981 15527 299 1055 236

2 93 93 8251 89 253 53

1 776 776 6052 151 695 134

0 112 112 1224 59 107 49

1 757 757 12507 213 790 155

0 97 97 2004 58 200 52

0.00 12.81 12.81 16.02 27.23 25.32 33.55

0 45 45 1224 33 113 24

458 1035 648 1307 348

158 902 60 1166 182

279 80 505 120 153

21 53 83 21 13

358 856 543 979 305

23 116 108 82 58

6.42 13.55 19.89 8.38 19.02

11 75 68 41 31

Total HU

Still Living Without the Basics No. Mariana Is. (MP)

Municipality/Census Designated Place Kagman Koblerville Navy Hill San Antonio San Jose (Saipan) San Jose (Tinian) San Roque San Vicente Songsong Susupe Tanapag

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal Total HU 946 901 310 888 254 529 319 827 364 467 482

HU using public sewer

HU using septic tank or cesspool

HU using other means

Total (OHU)

62 493 273 606 196 159 202 175 63 398 222

575 359 35 270 48 331 95 604 291 49 167

309 49 2 12 10 39 22 48 10 20 93

653 783 221 743 213 383 247 669 298 393 397

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Percent OHULP with of OHULP Householder (as % of below Poverty Total OHU) Level in 1999 (OHULP) 207 92 21 53 46 85 40 113 19 53 110

31.70 11.75 9.50 7.13 21.60 22.19 16.19 16.89 6.38 13.49 27.71

113 56 13 31 29 53 29 74 11 38 66

195

Still Living Without the Basics

U.S. Virgin Islands (VI)

U.S. Virgin Islands (VI)

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal HU using HU using septic tank other HU using public sewer or cesspool means

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

Island/Census Designated Place

Total HU

St. Croix Island St. Croix Island, Rural St. John Island St. John Island, Rural St. Thomas Island St. Thomas Island, Rural Census Designated Place Anna's Retreat CDP Charlotte Amalie town Charlotte Amalie East CDP Charlotte Amalie West CDP Christiansted town Cruz Bay CDP Frederiksted town

23782 2850 2390 856 24030 947

11758 503 371 106 13748 171

11177 2103 1855 654 9514 733

847 244 164 96 768 43

19455 2063 1735 642 19458 755

939 57 167 99 656 11

4.83 2.76 9.63 15.42 3.37 1.46

3080 5195

2456 4859

528 237

96 99

2643 4292

43 218

1.63 5.08

1072

999

69

4

951

34

3.58

2291 1459 1529 512

1955 1347 265 464

317 75 1197 42

19 37 67 6

1921 1116 1090 327

74 77 67 59

3.85 6.90 6.15 18.04

196

Total (OHU)

Total (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU)

Still Living Without the Basics U.S. Virgin Islands (VI) Island/Census Designated Place Frederiksted Southeast CDP Grove Place CDP

Total HU 1154 1073

Housing Units (HU) Means of Sewage Disposal HU using HU using HU using septic tank other or cesspool means public sewer 748 706

389 341

17 26

Occupied Housing Units (OHU) Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Total (OHU) 986 980

Total (OHULP)

Percent of OHULP (as % of OHU) 52 70

5.27 7.14

197

Still Living Without the Basics

Glossary of Terms Alaska Native race/ethnic categories Self-identification among people of Alaska Native descent. These are the five detailed Alaska Native race and ethnic categories used in tabulating data in the Census 2000: Alaska Athabaskan Aleut Eskimo Tlingit-Haida All other tribes American Indian tribe/Selected American Indian categories Self-identification among people of American Indian descent. Many American Indians are members of a principal tribe or group empowered to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of the individual members. Census 2000 data are available for 36 tribes or selected American Indian categories: Apache Houma Pueblo Blackfeet Iroquois Puget Sound Salish Cherokee Kiowa Seminole Cheyenne Latin American (Aztec, Shoshone Chickasaw Inca, Mayan, etc.) Sioux Chippewa Lumbee Tohomo O’Odham Chocktaw Menominee Ute Colville Navajo Yakama Comanche Osage Yaqui Cree Ottawa Yuman Creek Paiute All other Crow Pima Delaware Potawatomi These tribes were selected based on a 1990 population threshold of 7,500. Related term: Race Asian Self-identification among people of Asian descent. There are 17 detailed Asian race and ethnic categories used in for tabulating data in the Census 2000: Asian Indian Bangladeshi Cambodian Chinese, except Taiwanese Filipino Hmong

Indonesian Japanese Korean Laotian Malaysian Pakistani

Sri Lankan Taiwanese Thai Vietnamese Other Asian

Related term: Race Borough A county equivalent in Alaska, a minor civil division in New York, and an incorporated place in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 199

Still Living Without the Basics

Central place The core incorporated place(s) or a census designated place of an urban area, usually consisting of the most populous place(s) in the urban area plus additional places that qualify under Census Bureau criteria. If the central place is also defined as an extended place, only the portion of the central place contained within the urban area is recognized as the central place. Census A complete enumeration, usually of a population, but also of businesses and commercial establishments, farms, governments, and so forth. Census (decennial) The census of population and housing, taken by the Census Bureau in years ending in 0 (zero). Article I of the Constitution requires that a census be taken every ten years for the purpose of reapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives. Census area The statistical equivalent of a county in Alaska. Census areas are delineated cooperatively by the state of Alaska and the Census Bureau for statistical purposes in the portion of Alaska not within an organized borough. Census county division (CCD) A subdivision of a county that is a relatively permanent statistical area established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and state and local government authorities. Used for presenting decennial census statistics in those states that do not have well-defined and stable minor civil divisions that serve as local governments. Census designated place (CDP) A statistical entity, defined for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines, comprising a densely settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place, but is locally identified by a name. CDPs are delineated cooperatively by state and local officials and the Census Bureau, following Census Bureau guidelines. Beginning with Census 2000 there are no size limits. Related term: Incorporated place Central city The largest city of a Metropolitan area (MA). Central cities are a basis for establishment of an MA. Additional cities that meet specific criteria also are identified as central cities. In a number of instances, only part of a city qualifies as central, because another part of the city extends beyond the MA boundary. Related term: Metropolitan area (MA) City A type of incorporated place in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In 23 states and the District of Columbia, some or all cities are not part of any Minor Civil Division (MCD), and the Census Bureau also treats these as county subdivisions, statistically equivalent to MCDs. Related terms: Incorporated place, Minor civil division (MCD)

200

Still Living Without the Basics

Comunidad Represents a census designated place that is not the representing governmental center of the municipio in Puerto Rico. There are no incorporated places in Puerto Rico. For Census 2000 there are no minimum population requirements. For 1990 comunidades had to have at least 1,000 people. Related term: Municipio Confidentiality The guarantee made by law (Title 13, United States Code) to individuals who provide census information regarding nondisclosure of that information to others. For US Code, Title 13, see http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_t.html#title_13_u.s._code Consolidated city An incorporated place that has combined its governmental functions with a county or sub-county entity but contains one or more other incorporated places that continue to function as local governments within the consolidated government. Related term: Incorporated place Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) A geographic entity defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget for use by federal statistical agencies. An area becomes a CMSA if it meets the requirements to qualify as a metropolitan statistical area, has a population of 1,000,000 or more, if component parts are recognized as primary metropolitan statistical areas, and local opinion favors the designation. Related terms: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA), Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) County and equivalent entity The primary legal subdivision of most states. In Louisiana, these subdivisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the county equivalents are boroughs, a legal subdivision, and census areas, a statistical subdivision. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia), there are one or more cities that are independent of any county and thus constitute primary subdivisions of their states. The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area is considered equivalent to a county for statistical purposes. In Puerto Rico, municipios are treated as county equivalents. Related term: Borough County subdivision A legal or statistical division of a county recognized by the Census Bureau for data presentation. The two major types of county subdivisions are census county divisions and minor civil divisions. Related terms: Minor civil division (MCD), Unorganized territory

201

Still Living Without the Basics

Householder The person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought, or rented. If there is no such person present, any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the householder for the purposes of the census. Housing unit A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. For vacant units, the criteria of separateness and direct access are applied to the intended occupants whenever possible. Hispanic or Latino origin For Census 2000, American Community Survey: People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire—"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"—as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. 1990 Census of Population and Housing: A self-designated classification for people whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Caribbean, or those identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, etc. Origin can be viewed as ancestry, nationality, or country of birth of the person or person’s parents or ancestors prior to their arrival in the United States. Income "Total income" is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips; self-employment income from own non-farm or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships; interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony. Incorporated place A type of governmental unit incorporated under state law as a city, town (except the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village and having legally prescribed limits, powers, and functions. Related terms: Census designated place (CDP), Place

202

Still Living Without the Basics

Living quarters A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms or a single room occupied as separate living quarters or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any people in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. Related term: Housing unit Long form The decennial census questionnaire, sent to approximately one in six households for the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses, contains all of the questions on the short form, as well as additional detailed questions relating to the social, economic, and housing characteristics of each individual and household. Information derived from the long form is referred to as sample data, and is tabulated for geographic entities as small as the block group level in 1980, 1990, and 2000 census data products. Related terms: Census (decennial), Sample data, Short form Metropolitan Refers to those areas surrounding large and densely populated cities or towns. Metropolitan area (MA) A collective term, established by the federal Office of Management and Budget, to refer to metropolitan statistical areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and primary metropolitan statistical areas. Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) A geographic entity defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget for use by federal statistical agencies, based on the concept of a core area with a large population nucleus, plus adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Qualification of an MSA requires the presence of a city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or the presence of an Urbanized Area (UA) and a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). The county or counties containing the largest city and surrounding densely settled territory are central counties of the MSA. Additional outlying counties qualify to be included in the MSA by meeting certain other criteria of metropolitan character, such as a specified minimum population density or percentage of the population that is urban. MSAs in New England are defined in terms of minor civil divisions, following rules concerning commuting and population density. Related terms: Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA), Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) Minor civil division (MCD) A primary governmental and/or administrative subdivision of a county, such as a township, precinct, or magisterial district. MCDs exist in 28 states and the District of Columbia. In 20 states, all or many MCD’s are general-purpose governmental units: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Most of these MCD’s are legally designated as towns or townships. Related Terms: Census county division (CCD), County subdivision, Unorganized territory

203

Still Living Without the Basics

Municipio Primary legal divisions of Puerto Rico. These are treated as county equivalents. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories Self-identification among people of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander descent. These are the 12 detailed Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories used in displaying data from Census 2000: Polynesian: Micronesian: Melanesian: Native Hawaiian Guanamanian or Fijian Samoan Chamorro Other Melanesian Tongan Other Micronesian Other Pacific Islander Other Polynesian Nonmetropolitan The area and population not located in any Metropolitan area (MA). Occupied housing unit A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or group of people living in it at the time of enumeration. Parish A type of governmental unit that is the primary legal subdivision of Louisiana, similar to a county in other states. Place A concentration of population either legally bounded as an incorporated place, or identified as a Census Designated Place (CDP) including comunidades and zonas urbanas in Puerto Rico. Incorporated places have legal descriptions of borough (except in Alaska and New York), city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), or village. Related terms: Census designated place (CDP), City, Comunidad, Incorporated place, Town, Zona urbana Plumbing facilities The data on plumbing facilities were obtained from both occupied and vacant housing units. Complete plumbing facilities include: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a bathtub or shower. All three facilities must be located in the housing unit. Population All people, male and female, child and adult, living in a given geographic area. Population density Total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States, state, county, place) divided by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles. Density is expressed as both "people (or housing units) per square kilometer" and "people (or housing units) per square mile" of land area. Poverty Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If 204

Still Living Without the Basics

the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family or unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level." For a detailed description of how the poverty level is determined, see: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html Related term: Income Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) A geographic entity defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget for use by federal statistical agencies. If an area meets the requirements to qualify as a metropolitan statistical area and has a population of one million or more, two or more PMSAs may be defined within it if statistical criteria are met and local opinion is in favor. A PMSA consists of one or more counties (county subdivisions in New England) that have substantial commuting interchange. When two or more PMSAs have been recognized, the larger area of which they are components then is designated a consolidated metropolitan statistical area. Related terms: Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA), Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) Puerto Rico The U.S. Census Bureau treats the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the equivalent of a state for data presentation purposes. Puerto Rico is divided into legal government municipios, which are statistically equivalent to counties. Race Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. For Census 2000: In 1997, after a lengthy analysis and public comment period, the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised the standards for how the Federal government would collect and present data on race and ethnicity. These new guidelines revised some of the racial categories used in 1990 and preceding censuses and allowed respondents to report as many race categories as were necessary to identify themselves on the Census 2000 questionnaire. The full report is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/race.pdf. How the new guidelines affect Census 2000 results and the comparison with data from 1990: Census 2000 race data are not directly comparable with data from 1990 and previous censuses. See the Census 2000 Brief, "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin" at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf.

205

Still Living Without the Basics

Race Alone categories (6): Includes the minimum five race categories required by OMB, plus the ‘some other race alone’ included by the Census Bureau for Census 2000, with the approval of OMB. White alone Black or African-American alone American Indian or Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Race Alone or in combination categories (63): There are other tabulations where ‘race alone or in combination’ are shown. These tabulations include not only persons who marked only one race (the ‘race alone’ category) but also those who marked that race and at least one other race. For example, a person who indicated that she was of Filipino and African-American background would be included in the African-American alone or in combination count, as well as in the Asian alone or in combination count. The alone or in combination totals are tallies of responses, rather than respondents. So the sum of the race alone or in combination will add to more than the total population. Some tabulations show the number of persons who checked ‘two or more races’. In some tables, including the first release of Census 2000 information, data is tabulated for 63 possible combinations of race: 6 race alone categories 15 categories of 2 races (e.g., White and African American, White and Asian, etc.) 20 categories of 3 races 15 categories of 4 races 6 categories of 5 races 1 category of 6 races =63 possible combinations Some tables show data for seven race categories: the six (mutually exclusive) major race-alone categories (White, African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and some other race) and a ‘two or more races’ category. The sum of these seven categories adds to 100 percent of the population. Related terms: Alaska Native race/ethnic categories, American Indian tribe/Selected American Indian categories, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories, Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Rural Territory, population and housing units not classified as urban. “Rural” classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas. Related terms: Urban, Metropolitan Sample data Population and housing information collected from the census long form for a one in six sample of households in the United States and Puerto Rico, and on a continuous basis for selected areas in the American Community Survey. Related terms: Census (decennial), Long form

206

Still Living Without the Basics

Short Form The decennial census questionnaire, sent to approximately five of six households for the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses. For Census 2000, the questionnaire asked population questions related to household relationship, sex, race, age and Hispanic or Latino origin and housing questions related to tenure, occupancy, and vacancy status. The 1990 short form contained a question on marital status. The questions contained on the short form also are asked on the long form, along with additional questions. Related terms: Census (decennial), Long form Spanish/Hispanic/Latino For Census 2000 and the American Community Survey: People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire—"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"—as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. For 1990 Census of Population and Housing: A self-designated classification for people whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Caribbean, or those identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, etc. Origin can be viewed as ancestry, nationality, or country of birth of the person or person’s parents or ancestors prior to their arrival in the United States. Spanish/Hispanic/Latino people may be of any race. Listed below are the 28 Hispanic or Latino categories used in Census 2000 tabulations: South American: Other Hispanic or Latino: Mexican Puerto Rican Argentinian Spaniard Cuban Bolivian Spanish Dominican Republic Chilean Spanish American Central American: Colombian All other Hispanic or Costa Rican Ecuadorian Latino Guatemalan Paraguayan Honduran Peruvian Nicaraguan Uruguayan Panamanian Venezuelan Salvadoran Other South American Other Central American Summary File 3 (SF 3) This file presents data on the population and housing long form subjects such as income and education. It includes population totals for ancestry groups. It also includes selected characteristics for a limited number of race and Hispanic or Latino categories. The data are available for the U.S., regions, divisions, states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, block groups, metropolitan areas, American Indian and Alaska Native areas, tribal subdivisions, Hawaiian home lands, congressional districts, and Zip Code Tabulation Areas. Related term: Long form 207

Still Living Without the Basics

Town A type of minor civil division in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin and a type of incorporated place in 30 states and the Virgin Islands of the United States. Related term: County subdivision Unorganized Territory Occur in 10 minor civil division (MCD) states where portions of counties are not included in any legally established MCD or independent incorporated place. The pieces are recognized as one or more separate county subdivisions for statistical data presentation purposes. Urban All territory, population and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of more than 2,500 persons outside of urbanized areas. "Urban" classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas. Related terms: Metropolitan, Rural Urban Area Collective term referring to all areas that are urban. For Census 2000, there are two types of urban areas: urban clusters and urbanized areas. Urban Cluster A densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. This is new for Census 2000. Urbanized area (UA) An area consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 people. The Census Bureau uses published criteria to determine the qualification and boundaries of UAs. Usual residence The living quarters where a person spends more nights during a year than any other place. Related term: Living quarters Usual residence elsewhere A housing unit temporarily occupied at the time of enumeration entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere is classified as vacant. The occupants are classified as having a "Usual residence elsewhere" and are counted at the address of their usual place of residence. Village A type of incorporated place in 20 states and American Samoa. The Census Bureau treats all villages in New Jersey, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and some villages in Ohio as county subdivisions. Zona Urbana Represents a census designated place that is the governmental center of each municipio in Puerto Rico. There are no incorporated places in Puerto Rico. Related term: Municipio 208

The RCAP Network To determine what services are available in your community, contact: Great Lakes RCAP WSOS Community Action Commission 109 South Front Street Fremont, Ohio 43420 (419) 334-8911 www.wsos.org Midwest RCAP Midwest Assistance Program 212 Lady Slipper Avenue NE Post Office Box 81 New Prague, Minnesota 56071 (952) 758-4334 www.map-inc.org Northeast RCAP RCAP Solutions 218 Central Street Winchendon, Massachusetts 01475 (978) 297-5300 www.rcapsolutions.org Southeast RCAP Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project 145 Campbell Avenue SW Post Office Box 2868 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868 (540) 345-1184 www.sercap.org Southern RCAP Community Resource Group Post Office Box 1543 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702 (479) 443-2700 www.crg.org Western RCAP Rural Community Assistance Corporation 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 447-2854 www.rcac.org RCAP, Inc. 1522 K Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-1273 www.rcap.org

Funded by Technical Assistance and Training Grant, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service, Water and Environmental Programs Community Capacity Development for Safe Drinking Water, United States Enviromental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Solid Waste Management Grant, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service, Water and Environmental Programs Small Community Wastewater Project, Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Wastewater Management

Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century

(SPINE -- To be dropped in)