Low and moderate income population

In the housing context, the commonly used household income standards are those used in the Section 8 program. This post briefly explores data that shed light on the size of the Massachusetts population at different Section 8 income levels.

Section 8 standards, explored in more depth in a previous post, start from area median household income (“AMI”) as a base. The standards rely on data from the American Community Survey (an annual Census data product) to estimate AMI in different geographic areas. The standards define then eligible household income-levels as a percentage of AMI. They differentiate households of different sizes. For example, the 50% AMI level is lower for a 1-person household than for a 4-person household. However, published census data tabulate medians for households without reference to size — no published tabulation of census data shows the median income for 1-person households as opposed to 4-person households. HUD uses a mathematical formula to compute AMI thresholds for different household sizes, not actual data. It is difficult to know from census data how many people in a given area would meet the HUD income threshold.

Fortunately, a different federal program, the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) program, references the concentration of low and middle income people as a geographic eligibility standard for grants and ties definitions to the Section 8 Program. As a result, HUD works with the Census to produce a special data tabulation of the numbers of Section-8 defined low and moderate income persons every five years. The most recent tabulation, released in June 2024, is based on American Community Survey data collected between 2016 and 2020. Just to keep things confusing, the CDBG program uses the words “low” and “moderate” differently than Section 8:

Income labels comparison CDBG vs. Section 8

CDBGSection 8
Up to 30% of AMInot defined separately Extremely low income
30% to 50% of AMILow incomeVery low income
50% to 80% of AMIModerate incomeLow income
80% to 120% of AMIMedium income*not defined separately
For CDB Definitions, See 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(19), CDBG Program Guide, page 3-3. For Section 8 definitions, see this post or see HUD income limit data directly.
* The term “medium” income is not apparently a CDBG eligibility construct, but it is included in the CDBG data tabulation.

Another distinction between CDBG and Section 8 is that the Section 8 definitions refer to households per se, while the “L/M” rules for CDBG refer to low and moderate income persons based on their household income. Thus the special CDBG tabulation provides person counts, not household counts. The two tables below show the concentration and number of income disadvantaged persons by county in Massachusetts.

Concentration of persons by household income level
2016-2020 5-Year American Community Survey (2020 Dollars)

County< 50% of AMI50-80% of AMIAll < 80% of AMI80-120% of AMIHousehold Population*
Barnstable 23%17%40%22%210,795
Berkshire 22%16%39%20%119,115
Bristol 25%15%40%19%548,225
Dukes 27%19%46%25%17,165
Essex 29%16%44%19%769,075
Franklin 25%17%43%20%69,035
Hampden 29%17%46%17%452,120
Hampshire 22%14%35%17%137,945
Middlesex 22%13%36%19%1,547,940
Nantucket 21%9%30%32%10,935
Norfolk 21%14%34%20%685,420
Plymouth 21%15%36%21%507,145
Suffolk 41%16%57%18%752,780
Worcester 24%16%40%20%796,840
Massachusetts26%15%41%19%6,624,535
Source: ACS 5-year 2016-2020 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data, downloaded October 2024 and tabulated in this spreadsheet. Note that census income used for AMI does not include non-cash income like Section 8 vouchers.
* In the summary data, this column is referred to as “Persons with the potential for being deemed Low-, Moderate- and Middle-income”, however it is close to the household population for the 2016-2020 5-year ACS. The household population excludes homeless and people residing in group quarters. The total persons in Massachusetts in the LMI data is 6,624,525; the total household population is 6,617,450 and the total population 6,873,003 — all counts based on the 2020 ACS 5-year data set.

Persons by household income level
2016-2020 5-Year American Community Survey (2020 Dollars)

< 50% of AMI50-80% of AMIAll < 80% of AMI80-120% of AMIHousehold Population*
Barnstable 48,53536,67085,20545,910210,795
Berkshire 26,58019,37545,95524,300119,115
Bristol 136,02580,550216,575104,700548,225
Dukes 4,6593,2017,8604,24517,165
Essex 221,854119,921341,775149,050769,075
Franklin 17,44511,90029,34514,05569,035
Hampden 131,75575,405207,16077,485452,120
Hampshire 29,83518,81548,65023,910137,945
Middlesex 346,762204,843551,605293,3151,547,940
Nantucket 2,2901,0103,3003,55010,935
Norfolk 141,69592,630234,325136,160685,420
Plymouth 104,56477,851182,415106,850507,145
Suffolk 310,680117,750428,430133,030752,780
Worcester 193,695123,635317,330156,905796,840
Massachusetts1,716,374983,5562,699,9301,273,4656,624,535
See notes from previous table

The CDBG tabulation does not include data for the Extremely Low-Income (30% AMI level). The Census does, however, publish population counts for person in households at different income levels compared to the poverty line. The table below compares the HUD AMI levels for Massachusetts Statewide with the national thresholds for poverty. There are several observations to made about the data in the table:

  • HUD AMI levels for 4-person families correspond fairly closely to the stated percentages of statewide median AMI, $104,900. The 4 person limits are respectively 81%, 54%, 32% of statewide AMI. (These computations are not shown in the chart, but are shown in the supporting spreadsheet.)
  • The Census poverty thresholds allow more income for larger households as compared to smaller households than the HUD AMI definitions. The HUD AMI definitions are based on simple ratio calculation vs. the 4-person household, as visible in the data below and discussed in this previous post.
  • The HUD ELI level for Massachusetts (“30% AMI”) is above 100% of the national poverty threshold for all but the largest households.
  • The HUD ELI level for Massachusetts (“30% AMI”) is below 150% of the national poverty threshold for all but the smallest households.
  • From the last two observations it follows that the Massachusetts ELI population count is between the 100% poverty population and the 150% poverty population.

2020 HUD Income Levels (Massachusetts, statewide) and Census-defined poverty levels (national)

1 Person2 Person3 Person4 Person5 Person6 Person7 Person8 Person
Low-Income Limit (LIL) “80% AMI”54,95062,80070,65078,50084,80091,05097,350103,600
Very Low-Income Limit (VLIL) “50% AMI”36,70041,95047,20052,45056,65060,85065,05069,250
Extremely Low-Income Limit (ELIL) “30% AMI”22,05025,20028,30031,45034,00036,50039,00041,550
Income limits ratio to 4 person (fixed all for levels — HUD Methodology)70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%108.0%116.0%124.0%132.0%
Census Poverty Threshold13,17116,73320,59126,49631,41735,49940,40644,755
Poverty threshold ratio to 4 person (built up from need
— Census Methodology)
49.7%63.2%77.7%100.0%118.6%134.0%152.5%168.9%
ELIL as % of poverty threshold167%151%137%119%108%103%97%93%
Sources: See attached spreadsheet. Note that census income does not include non-cash income like Section 8 vouchers.

From all of the data above, we have the following summary chart. This chart is useful in considering the availability of housing at different income levels — a subject for a future post.

Persons in households below certain household income levels in Massachusetts in 2020

Sources: See attached spreadsheet. Note that census income does not include non-cash income like Section 8 vouchers.

Resource spreadsheet with data links and underlying calculation.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Thanks for this data, Will.
    ILLEGAL immigrants will get Section 8 too. Millions of them
    And their children will overwhelm schools, just is happening in Springfield (“Influx of migrants strains public schools in Springfield; schools are struggling to teach and provide for migrant students with no previous education”):
    https://defendinged.org/incidents/influx-of-migrants-strains-public-schools-in-springfield-schools-are-struggling-to-teach-and-provide-for-migrant-students-with-no-previous-education/
    Perhaps Watertown and Belmont can open their schools to a few thousand of these children.
    I am sure there is lots of empty space and plenty of property tax money to fund it.
    And plenty of housing is available in both towns for the parents. Don’t let Springfield handle this alone.
    Watertown and Belmont: Step up!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *