tively. Thus, during the decade, the rise in me dian rents was 108 percent for nonwhites and percent for whites. About 42 percent of all no farm tenant-occupied dwelling units in 1950 tad 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 slutt of monthly rents paid, nonwhite tenants are stil largely concentrated in the middle and lower rent classes. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the were living in units which rented for less than a month witte about one-third 35 perceLL white tenant-occupied units were in the tal range. While almost a fitn of nccfarm houses were paying S 1950. a larger properuar a s sumacix will pax more as readily available to thes A comparison of tapes patterns of change 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 them. 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 at this segment of the total population. The filtration process has heretofore served to confine the nonwhite population in disproportionately large num bers to blighted and slum neighborhoods, comprising the preponderance of old and nun-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. mans and gross month. .. r 1438 m a rily ully well enternt was "OC ere not characteristics. Thus, excessive overcrowding, doubling, and occupancy of substandard dwelling units continue, with their improved incomes, to exert relatively stronger pressures on nonwhite households to acquire more and better housing. In considering the means by which the housing requirements of the nonwhite population may be met, a significant economic factor emerges. Unlike the situation in past years, much more of the housing needs of nonwhite families actually represents unmet market demand, due in large measure to the improved economic status of this group. Last-decade gains in employment opportunities in the higher paying jobs and greater employment security-which appear to have continued substantially into the current decade of the 1950'shave resulted in an appreciable advancement in the purchasing power of nonwhite families and have created among them an active and expanding market for more and higher quality housing. Thus although the majority of nonwhite families require housing accommodations at relatively low rents, there now exists a considerable and growing rental market in the middle- and upper-income brackets. For example, about one-third of a million nonwhite households, or nearly 20 percent of all nonwhite tenants, were paying monthly rents of $40 or more in 1950. Moreover, there are substantial numbers of nonwhite households able to pay and desirous of paying higher rents for better accommo 8 dations than those which they are now compelled to occupy. This observation is reinforced by data obtained from the 1940 census (similar data not yet available from the 1950 census) which show that higher proportions of nonwhite than white families in the relatively high income and rent groups were occupying housing that was deficient in various respects. It should also be borne in mind that, as with the income distributions, the disparities in the value of homes owned by nonwhite and those owned by white families have been measurably narrowed between 1940 and 1950. This indicates that there is also a growing sales market among nonwhites. All of this leads to the positive conclusion that the market demand for improved housing among nonwhite families could be made effective if they were given fuller access to the expanding housing supply. Moreover, the expanding housing markets among nonwhites are well within the reach of the private residential building industry and home financing institutions and present a new and growing challenge as well as sound and profitable business opportunities-to make more suitable housing available to this large segment of American families. 8 See Housing and Home Finance Agency, "The Housing of Negro Veterans," January 1948, pp. 20-24. See C. K. Robinson, "Relationship of Condition of Dwelling Units and Rentals, by Race," Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, August 1946. APPENDIX A-DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanations of selected housing terminology and brief notes on the qualifications and limitations of statistical data utilized in the present analysis are set forth here as further aids in the proper interpretation of the data, particularly as to their 1940-50 comparability. These statements are, for the most part, excerpts from the definitions and explanations which appear in the published reports of the Bureau of the Census presenting the results of the decennial censuses of 1940 and 1950. Tenure-Dwelling Units and Households In the 1950 and 1940 censuses the "occupied dwelling unit" was the unit of the housing inventory which was classified by tenure. The 1950 census defined a dwelling unit, in general terms, as a group of rooms or a single room, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, by a family or other group of persons living together or by a person living alone. Correspondingly, in 1950 a household was defined to include all of the persons, without regard to relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, who occupied a house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a room, that constituted a dwelling unit. Quasi-households, such as institutions, hotels, large rooming houses, and military barracks, were not counted in the statistics on households in 1950. The 1940 census defined a dwelling unit, much the same as in 1950, as the living quarters occupied or intended for occupancy by one household-a household consisting of a family or other group of persons living together with common housekeeping arrangements, or by a person living entirely alone. Thus, in both 1940 and 1950 the number of households, by definition, was the same as the number of occupied dwelling units, although the more explicit 1950 census instructions to enumerators permitted a more precise identification of a dwelling unit. The number of households or occupied dwelling units in 1950 may, nevertheless, be regarded as generally comparable with the number of occupied dwelling units in 1940. In the classification by tenure in 1950 and in 1940 a dwelling unit was enumerated as "owned" or "owner-occupied" if the owner or co-owner was one of the persons living in the unit (or absent from the household for a short period of time, such as, a family member in the Armed Forces or temporarily working away from home) even if he had not fully paid for the unit or had a mortgage on it. A dwelling unit was classified as "rented" or "renteroccupied" (tenant-occupied) if any money rent was paid or contracted for. Units which were “occupied rent free"-e. g., those which were not occupied by the owner and for which no money rent payment was made or contracted-were tabulated in 1950 and 1940 within the renter- or tenant-occupied classification. Dwelling Units Classified As "Dilapidated" A dwelling unit is dilapidated when it has serious deficiencies, is run-down or neglected, or is of inadequate original construction, so that the dwelling unit does not provide adequate shelter or protection against the elements or it endangers the safety of the occupants. Dilapidated dwelling units are so classified either because of deterioration, as evidenced by the presence of one or more critical deficiencies or a combination of minor deficiencies, or because of inadequate original construction, such that they should be torn down, extensively repaired, or rebuilt. Value of Owned Homes For 1950, value data were enumerated in the census of housing for each nonfarm owner-occupied dwelling unit which was, and only if it was, in a one-dwelling unit structure without business and if it was the only dwelling unit included in the property. The current market value for each such dwelling unit enumerated represented the amount for which the owner estimated that the property including such land as belonged with it, would have sold under ordinary conditions and not at forced sale. For 1940, similar value data were enumerated in the census of housing, but for all owner-occupied dwelling units. However, if an owner-occupied unit was in a structure that contained more than one dwelling unit, or if part of the structure was used for business purposes, the value reported represented only that portion occupied by the owner and his household. Value data for 1940 are not completely comparable with the 1950 value data, primarily because of the limitation of the 1950 data to only one type of owner-occupied dwelling unit, as specified above. Mortgage Status of Owned Homes Mortgage status statistics developed from the 1950 and 1940 censuses are directly comparable; for each of these census years they relate to nonfarm owner-occupied dwelling units in one- to four-family structures without business. An owned home was classified as mortgaged, at each census period, if there was an indebtedness in the form of a mortgage, a deed of trust or a land contract that was secured by it or by the property of which it was a part. Monthly Rent Rental data shown in this report relates to renteror tenant-occupied nonfarm dwelling units or homes only. Contract monthly rent for the 1940 and 1950 censuses was defined as the rent contracted for by the renter or tenant at the time of the enumeration. It was the amount contracted for regardless of whether it included furniture, heating fuel, electricity, cooking fuel, water, or other services sometimes supplied. In 1950, dwelling units which were occupied rent free were not included with the units reporting rent. Gross monthly rent was computed as contract rent plus the reported average monthly cost of water, electricity, gas, and other fuel paid for by the renter or tenant. If furniture was included in the contract rent, the reported estimated rent of the dwelling unit without furniture, instead of the contract rent, was used in the computation. Rent differentials which resulted from varying practices with respect to the inclusion of heat, utilities, and furniture as a part of the contract rent were thus eliminated from the gross rent figures. The same method of computation was used in both the 1940 and 1950 censuses. Color of Occupants In 1950 and 1940 occupied dwelling units were classified by race of head of household. Three major classifications have been distinguished in these census years; namely, "white," "Negro," and "other races.' Persons of Mexican birth or ancestry who were not definitely Indian or of other nonwhite race were enumerated as white in 1940 and 1950. Thus, the entire "nonwhite" classification as used in the present analysis consisted for 1950 and 1940 of Negroes, Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and other nonwhite races. Area Classifications Housing and family data enumerated for the 1950 and 1940 censuses were tabulated in three broad area classifications (1) urban, (2) rural nonfarm, and (3) rural farm. In 1940 urban areas were defined, in general, as cities and incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more. For the 1950 census, however, a new definition of urban areas was adopted, such areas being defined to comprise: (a) Places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, boroughs, and villages; (b) the densely settled suburban area, or urban fringe, incorporated or unincorporated, around cities of 50,000 or more; (c) and unincorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside of any urban fringe. The urban territory also includes incorporated towns of 2,500 inhabitants or more except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin, where towns are simply minor civil divisions of counties. The remaining areas were classified as rural, which was further subdivided into rural nonfarm and rural farm on the basis of farm residence. It might be noted further that the method of determining farm and nonfarm residence in the 1950 census differed somewhat from that used in earlier censuses. In 1950, dwelling units on farms for which cash rent was paid for the house and yard only were classified as nonfarm. Furthermore, dwelling units on institutional grounds and in summer camps, motels, and tourist camps were classified as nonfarm. Under the new definition, many areas which were classified in 1940 as rural nonfarm-and would have remained so classified in 1950 under the old definition-were classified as urban in 1950. Thus, in making comparisons of 1950 and 1940 housing data on the urban- and rural nonfarmarea bases it should be remembered that at least some portion of any observed changes may be due merely to differences in classification by area. Comparisons based on the two broad area classifications, farm and nonfarm, are roughly valid between 1940 and 1950. It will be noted that in the 1940 and 1950 tabulations on tenure shown in this analysis, occupied urban-farm units, totalling 82,289 in 1940, were included in the nonfarm classification-in line with the new definition of urban areas as used in the 1950 census. Census Reports Utilized The reports of the Bureau of the Census, from which the preceding notes were extracted and the statistical data used in the analysis were compiled, are as follows: Seventeenth Census of the United States, 1950: Census of Housing, Preliminary Reports: Series HC 5, No. 1-Housing Characteristics of the United States: April 1, 1950. Series HC 5, No. 3-Housing Characteristics, By Regions: April 1, 1950. Census of Population, Preliminary Reports: Series PC 7, No. 1-General Characteristics of the Population of the United States, April 1, 1950. Series PC 7, No. 2-Employment and Series PC 7, No. 3-General Charac- gions, April 1, 1950. Series PC 14, No. 1-Population of 1950 and 1940. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Housing: Vol. II-General Characteris tics, Part I, United States Summary. Housing: Vol. IV-Mortgages on Owner- APPENDIX B-STATISTICAL TABLES The statistical tables presented herein show the basic housing data utilized in the present analysis. The data were compiled from various reports and releases of the United States Bureau of the Census. Each table contains specific footnotes relating to its contents. General notes on the over-all nature and limitation of the data are included in appendix A, Definitions and Explanatory Notes, and should be reviewed before detailed use of the tables is made. It will be noted, also, that the tables show much more detail than does the analysis; consequently, they may serve as the bases of additional and more detailed analyses of the housing characteristics which are the subject of the present study. |