Condition and Facilities of Housing

The rise in incomes-approximately trebling for nonwhite families in nonfarm areas-was closely associated with general improvement in the condition and facilities of nonfarm dwelling units during 1940-50. The extent of the improvement cannot be measured directly, however, since the census criterion for measuring quality of housing in 1950whether or not a condition of dilapidation existed— differed from the 1940 criterion, which related to the general condition and the need for repairs. Some rough gauge of the improvement which occurred, however, can be found through a comparison of the availability of a private indoor flush toilet and private bathing facilities in 1940 and 1950. Thus, the proportion of occupied nonfarm dwelling units with private indoor flush toilet increased from 73 percent in 1940 to 80 percent in 1950. The proportion of occupied nonfarm dwelling units with a private bath or shower increased from 68 to 77 percent. Here again, the over-all improvement covers up the fact that as a group the nonwhites are much less well housed than the whites.

Various broad differentials in the quality of housing available to nonwhite families, as compared with white families, were indicated by previous analyses of data from the 1940 census of housing and the 1947 sample survey. For example, out of 32,354,000 occupied dwelling units in 1947, about 24,249,000, or 75 percent, were in good condition or in need of minor repairs only and contained private bath and private flush toilet. In 1940, little over 60 percent of all occupied dwelling units fell into this category. In contrast, the proportion of dwelling units occupied by nonwhites which were in good condition and had private bath and private flush toilet rose from about 25 percent in 1940 to 39 percent in 1947. However, twice this proportion, or about 78 percent, of nonfarm white households was living in such units at the time of the April 1947 survey; in 1940, the proportion was 66 percent.

5 Improvement in condition and facilities of housing observed in terms of Census data (i. e., state of dilapidation and plumbing facilities) may be due in part to the effect of migration. However, data are not available to determine the extent to which the movement of nonwhites was from "poor" to "better" housing.

Analysis of the 1950 census data indicates that homes of nonwhite families continued to show a relatively greater degree of substandardness and need for improvement than did those of white families. In 1950, for example, 27 percent of the homes of nonwhites in nonfarm areas as compared with 5 percent of whites were dilapidated. Corresponding percentages for urban areas were somewhat lower while for rural nonfarm areas they were somewhat higher, for both nonwhite and white families. In urban areas, 30 percent of the nonwhite homes were not dilapidated but lacked either running water, private toilet, or bath, compared with 11 percent of urban white units in this category. An installed private bathtub or shower was not available to 40 percent of nonwhite families in urban places and to 94 percent of them in rural nonfarm areas; this facility was lacking to only 9 and 40 percent of white families in urban and rural nonfarm areas, respectively. While nearly 42 percent of nonwhite urban homes lacked the use of a private flush toilet, only 10 percent of white units did not have this facility. As to piped running water, three-fourths of nonwhite families in rural nonfarm areas, compared with only one-fourth of white families, had none at all; but in urban areas only 50 percent of nonwhite families, compared with 87 percent of white families, had access to both hot and cold running water inside their homes.

As to electric lighting and central heating of dwellings, the 1947 sample survey provides the latest comparative data available by color of the occupants. There was a slight rise between 1940 and 1947 in the proportion of the total nonfarm occupied dwelling units with electric lighting. However, this masks the sharper increase in the use of electric lighting which occurred in units occupied by nonwhite households during this period. While only about 60 percent of these units were equipped with such facilities in 1940, the proportion rose to 80 percent in 1947. Nevertheless, the 20 percent of the dwellings occupied by nonwhites which did not have electric lighting was some ten times higher than the corresponding percentage for white households.

The figures shown in the 1947 Sample Survey indicate a considerably higher proportion of non

• See definition in the appendix.

farm units occupied by nonwhites (about 72 percent) to be without central heating in contrast to the comparable proportion for white households (about 40 percent). To some extent, however, geographic factors probably account for the large magnitudes involved. Because the larger proportion of nonwhite households is in the South where requirements for central heating equipment are less, the weight of such households contributes to the higher proportions of units without central heating occupied by nonwhites.

Finally, in nonfarm areas the proportion of homes lacking in any one or more standard facility (piped running water, private flush toilet, private bathtub or shower, electricity, central heating) was generally two to three times as high for dwelling units occupied by nonwhites as for those occupied by whites.

Tenure

Other evidence of the impact of changes in the distribution of population and income upon the housing supply is shown in the changes which occurred in tenure during the 10-year period. The percentage of owner-occupied units in nonfarm areas rose from 41 percent in 1940 to 53 percent

in 1950, and for the first time in the Nation's history, nonfarm home owners exceeded renters. Not only did nonwhites participate in the general increase in home ownership in nonfarm areas, but the proportion of owner occupancy increased more sharply in this group than among whites. The rate of increase for whites was about 70 percent, but it rose about 93 percent for nonwhites.

Despite this sharp rise in nonfarm home ownership, the majority of nonwhite families were still renters in 1950. The nonfarm proportion of nonwhite households occupying rented dwelling units was approximately 65 percent compared with 45 percent among white households. Thus, among nonfarm households, renters continued in predominance among nonwhites. (See table 15.) This fact, taken together with their position in the income scale, makes it clear that the rental market is of major importance in housing nonwhites.

Under normal circumstances home ownership is a desirable objective among families. If it results, however, from the necessity of buying as the only means of obtaining a home, the effects of such forced purchases may be deleterious in the years to come. Many families, including nonwhites, have been compelled to buy during the last decade in order to have a place to live despite their preference

to rent. Although some have been well able to undertake the financial obligations of home ownership, others have been marginal buyers for whom the risks of home ownership are great because of their limited financial capacity or employment security.

It is especially difficult for nonwhites to acquire living quarters during periods of general housing shortage because of prevailing restrictions upon their occupancy as well as their relatively lower incomes. Provided these workers are able to maintain and further their economic advances and have fuller access to an expanding housing supply, the trend toward increased home ownership among nonwhites should continue and become more firmly established.

Mortgage Status of Owned Homes

The increase in the number and proportion of mortgaged homes owned by nonwhites in nonfarm areas accompanied, as was to be expected, the unprecedented advance in home ownership made by them during the last decade. The improved income situation of nonwhites, together with the fuller advantage taken of the liberalized Government aids in guaranteeing or insuring mortgage loans in serving nonwhite home purchases, in some measure offset the inflationary pressures in the housing market which caused the upward spiralling in the market value of homes available to them. During that period the number of nonwhites acquiring home mortgages exceeded by far the number of existing owners paying off mortgages. Despite the substantial increase in mortgaged homes of nonwhites during the decade, it is of interest that in both urban and rural nonfarm areas the proportion of homes which were mortgaged still remained considerably smaller among nonwhites than among whites.

Thus, the reversal by 1950 in the long-term uptrend in the proportion of all owned homes in nonfarm areas which were mortgaged a significant development in the housing of the American family—was due almost entirely to the experience of white home owners. Reflecting in part the large number of homes newly acquired by nonwhites during the decade, proportionately more

homes owned by this group were mortgaged in 1950 than in 1940, the percentages being 29.4 in 1940 and 37.6 in 1950. Thus, the trend for all nonwhite mortgaged owned homes in the nonfarm. area as a whole continued sharply upward. On the other hand, the proportion of all white nonfarm owned homes which were mortgaged declined slightly from 46 percent in 1940 to 44 percent in 1950, and, as shown by census data for earlier years, thereby reversed the long-term uptrend. The mortgage status trends for white owned homes were similarly reversed in both urban and rural nonfarm areas. Only in the rural nonfarm areas was there a slight decline in the percent of mortgaged nonwhite homes, from 15.8 to 14.5, between 1940 and 1950.

Finally, it should be observed that although these data indicate improvement in the availability of mortgage financing to nonwhites during this decade mortgage financing is still less readily available to nonwhites than to whites.

Value of Owned Homes

The estimated market values of nonfarm homes occupied by nonwhite owners in 1950 were, like those of white owners, at the highest levels ever recorded. The values of white owned homes, however, still greatly exceeded those of nonwhite owned homes, being on the average more than two and one half times as great. In fact, market values of owned homes varied widely between white and nonwhite owners and, as well, between urban and rural nonfarm areas. The median average value was $3,000 for all nonwhite owners and $7,700 for all white owners in 1950. The median average value ranged from the $3,700 for nonwhites in urban areas to $8,700 for urban homes of white owners. Valued at $5,000 or more were over a fourth of the nonwhite and threefourths of the white owned homes, while over threetenths of the white and nearly one-tenth of the nonwhite-owned homes were valued at $10,000 or more. The disparities between the values of homes owned by nonwhite families and those owned by white families have considerably narrowed, however, during the 10-year period ended 1950, just as was true of their family income distributions.

The increase in values of nonfarm homes owned by nonwhites reflects the influence of several factors which operated in the housing market during the last decade, particularly in the postwar period. The improved economic situation among nonwhites enabled more of them to buy more houses of good quality and of higher values, some in the better class neighborhoods from which they were previously barred by various restrictions on the sale of properties to thein. This movement to better neighborhoods has accelerated since May 1948 when the United States Supreme Court prohibited judicial enforcement of racial restrictive covenants. New, better-quality and higher-value housing constructed and made available to nonwhite occupancy in numerous localities North and South, although relatively lesser in volume and lower in quality than that constructed and reserved for white occupancy, has helped to raise the average quality and value of the inventory of homes available to nonwhite ownership as well as rental. Finally, the improved economic situation of the nonwhite population and the outlawing of court enforcement of restrictive covenants against their residence in various areas have to some measure blunted the extreme detrimental effects of the filtration process in serving the housing needs of this segment of the total population. The filtration process has heretofore served to confine the nonwhite population in disproportionately large numbers to blighted and slum neighborhoods, comprising the preponderance of old and run-down, low-amenity properties left behind as white families moved on to occupy new and better quality housing available to them in the newer and exclusive neighborhoods.

tively. Thus, during the decade, the rise in median rents was 108 percent for nonwhites and 64 percent for whites. About 42 percent of all nonfarm tenant-occupied dwelling units in 1950 fall into the monthly rent classes of $40 and over as compared with 15 percent in 1940. Accordingly, the proportion of renters who paid less than $20 a month declined from 45 percent in 1940 to only 19 percent in 1950. While almost half of the units occupied by nonwhite tenants in 1940 rented for less than $10 a month, by 1950, less than one-sixth were in this bracket. Despite this upward shift of monthly rents paid, nonwhite tenants are still largely concentrated in the middle and lower rent classes. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of them were living in units which rented for less than $30 a month, while about one-third (35 percent) of the white tenant-occupied units were in the same rental range. While almost a fifth of nonwhite renters of nonfarm houses were paying $40 or more in 1950, a larger proportion of them could and presumably will pay more as better housing becomes readily available to them.

A comparison of tables 19 and 20 shows similar patterns of change for both contract monthly rents and gross monthly rents from 1940 to 1950 in the distribution and differentials of rentals paid by nonwhite and white renters, although the gross monthly rents are larger since they include estimates of the cost of water, gas, electricity, and other fuel paid for by the renter but not that portion of the contract rent paid for the use of furniture.

Contract Monthly Rents

The (monthly contract) rents paid by nonwhite tenants in 1950 were substantially lower than those paid by whites, although the rental distribution for both groups showed greater proportions in the higher brackets than in 1940. The nonfarm median contract rent paid by nonwhites in 1950 was $25 compared with $37 for whites. In 1940, the corresponding medians were $10 and $23, respec

CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing analyses show that over the past decade substantial improvements have been made in housing the nonwhite population. Despite the gains there still remain, however, broad differentials in the housing supply available to nonwhite and white families with respect to the relative quantity, physical condition, value, rents, and other

7 The changes in rent scales shown here reflect moves from cheaper units to more expensive units as well as rent increases, and should not be confused with the Bureau of Labor Statistics rent index which attempts to measure the changes in the rent of identical or closely similar units.

to rent. Although some have been well able to undertake the financial obligations of home ownership, others have been marginal buyers for whom the risks of home ownership are great because of their limited financial capacity or employment security.

It is especially difficult for nonwhites to acquire living quarters during periods of general housing shortage because of prevailing restrictions upon their occupancy as well as their relatively lower incomes. Provided these workers are able to maintain and further their economic advances and have fuller access to an expanding housing supply, the trend toward increased home ownership among nonwhites should continue and become more firmly established.

Mortgage Status of Owned Homes

The increase in the number and proportion of mortgaged homes owned by nonwhites in nonfarm areas accompanied, as was to be expected, the unprecedented advance in home ownership made by them during the last decade. The improved income situation of nonwhites, together with the fuller advantage taken of the liberalized Government aids in guaranteeing or insuring mortgage loans in serving nonwhite home purchases, in some measure offset the inflationary pressures in the housing market which caused the upward spiralling

in the market value of homes available to them. During that period the number of nonwhites acquiring home mortgages exceeded by far the number of existing owners paying off mortgages. Despite the substantial increase in mortgaged homes of nonwhites during the decade, it is of interest that in both urban and rural nonfarm areas the proportion of homes which were mortgaged still remained considerably smaller among nonwhites than among whites.

Thus, the reversal by 1950 in the long-term uptrend in the proportion of all owned homes in nonfarm areas which were mortgaged a significant development in the housing of the American family was due almost entirely to the experience of white home owners. Reflecting in part the large number of homes newly acquired by nonwhites during the decade, proportionately more 14

homes owned by this group were mortgaged in 1950 than in 1940, the percentages being 29.4 in 1940 and 37.6 in 1950. Thus, the trend for all nonwhite mortgaged owned homes in the nonfarm area as a whole continued sharply upward. On the other hand, the proportion of all white nonfarm owned homes which were mortgaged declined slightly from 46 percent in 1940 to 44 percent in 1950, and, as shown by census data for earlier years, thereby reversed the long-term uptrend. The mortgage status trends for white owned homes were similarly reversed in both urban and rural nonfarm areas. Only in the rural nonfarm areas was there a slight decline in the percent of mortgaged nonwhite homes, from 15.8 to 14.5, between 1940 and 1950.

Finally, it should be observed that although these data indicate improvement in the availability of mortgage financing to nonwhites during this decade mortgage financing is still less readily available to nonwhites than to whites.

Value of Owned Homes

The estimated market values of nonfarm homes occupied by nonwhite owners in 1950 were, like those of white owners, at the highest levels ever recorded. The values of white owned homes, however, still greatly exceeded those of nonwhite owned homes, being on the average more than two and one half times as great. In fact, market values of owned homes varied widely between white and nonwhite owners and, as well, between urban and rural nonfarm areas. The median average value was $3,000 for all nonwhite owners and $7,700 for all white owners in 1950. The median average value ranged from nonwhites in urban areas to $8 homes of white owners. Valued were over a fourth of the no fourths of the white owned hom tenths of the white and n nonwhite-owned h

more. The dis owned by no

white fami

ever, du

was

700 for

urban

more

three

three

of the