Homeownership rate and Median gross rent
Where Homeownership rate is higher, Median gross rent tends to be lower. The link is weak: -0.37 across 3,167 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 41 states, the middle value of the link is -0.20.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Homeownership rate
The percentage of lived-in homes that are owned, not rented. Empty homes are left out of the count entirely.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B25003_002, divided by occupied housing units
Median gross rent
The rent paid by the middle renting household, plus any utilities the renter pays. That is why it is called 'gross' rent, not just the rent in the lease.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B25064_001
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By homeownership rate
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Elbert County, CO | 94.4% | $1,436 |
| Oliver County, ND | 93.4% | $725 |
| Powhatan County, VA | 93.1% | $1,107 |
| Piute County, UT | 92.6% | $792 |
| New Kent County, VA | 92.1% | $1,653 |
| Lowest | ||
| Bronx County, NY | 20.3% | $1,436 |
| New York County, NY | 24.7% | $2,132 |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 29.5% | $1,886 |
| Kings County, NY | 29.7% | $1,784 |
| Hudson County, NJ | 31.2% | $1,811 |
By median gross rent
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| San Mateo County, CA | 59.1% | $2,893 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 55.3% | $2,814 |
| Marin County, CA | 63.9% | $2,584 |
| San Francisco County, CA | 38.5% | $2,419 |
| Orange County, CA | 56.4% | $2,352 |
| Lowest | ||
| Issaquena County, MS | 63.3% | $253 |
| Cottle County, TX | 78.6% | $323 |
| Guánica Municipio, PR | 71.2% | $330 |
| Hardin County, IL | 80.7% | $342 |
| Worth County, MO | 77.8% | $353 |
States
By homeownership rate
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| West Virginia | 74.3% | $850 |
| Maine | 74% | $1,084 |
| Michigan | 72.9% | $1,084 |
| Vermont | 72.8% | $1,193 |
| New Hampshire | 72.5% | $1,423 |
| Lowest | ||
| District of Columbia | 41.1% | $1,900 |
| New York | 54.3% | $1,576 |
| California | 55.8% | $1,956 |
| Nevada | 59.3% | $1,489 |
| Hawaii | 62.6% | $1,938 |
By median gross rent
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| California | 55.8% | $1,956 |
| Hawaii | 62.6% | $1,938 |
| District of Columbia | 41.1% | $1,900 |
| Colorado | 66.3% | $1,693 |
| Massachusetts | 62.6% | $1,687 |
| Lowest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 68.1% | $562 |
| West Virginia | 74.3% | $850 |
| South Dakota | 68.6% | $912 |
| Arkansas | 66.1% | $914 |
| Mississippi | 69.5% | $923 |
Metro areas — Median gross rent is not published for metro areas
By homeownership rate
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wildwood-The Villages, FL | 88.1% | — |
| Hemlock Farms, PA | 86.2% | — |
| Holland, MI | 86.1% | — |
| Homosassa Springs, FL | 84.8% | — |
| DeRidder, LA | 83.2% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Pullman, WA | 46.6% | — |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 48.6% | — |
| Carbondale, IL | 49.3% | — |
| Laramie, WY | 49.4% | — |
| Lawrence, KS | 49.5% | — |
Cities and towns
By homeownership rate
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wesley Chapel village, NC | 98.4% | $2,727 |
| St. John town, IN | 98.1% | $971 |
| Campton Hills village, IL | 98.1% | $1,424 |
| Westvale CDP, NY | 98% | $2,125 |
| South Run CDP, VA | 98% | $3,500 or more |
| Lowest | ||
| Fort Carson CDP, CO | 0% | $2,046 |
| Air Force Academy CDP, CO | 0% | $2,223 |
| Camp Pendleton Mainside CDP, CA | 0% | $3,500 or more |
| North Fort Lewis CDP, WA | 0% | $2,375 |
| Lackland AFB CDP, TX | 0% | $2,109 |
By median gross rent
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 59 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| Key Biscayne village, FL | 69.3% | $3,500 or more |
| Nocatee CDP, FL | 82.7% | $3,500 or more |
| Inverness village, IL | 97.8% | $3,500 or more |
| Lincolnwood village, IL | 84.4% | $3,500 or more |
| Long Grove village, IL | 96.7% | $3,500 or more |
| Lowest | ||
| Guánica zona urbana, PR | 68.8% | $300 |
| Aguadilla zona urbana, PR | 42.6% | $336 |
| San Germán zona urbana, PR | 51.2% | $404 |
| Juana Díaz zona urbana, PR | 58.2% | $404 |
| Guayama zona urbana, PR | 62.3% | $404 |
ZIP codes
By homeownership rate
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 18954 (Richboro CDP, PA) | 98.5% | $1,991 |
| ZIP 73025 (Logan County, OK) | 98.2% | $2,656 |
| ZIP 46373 (St. John town, IN) | 98% | $953 |
| ZIP 06883 (Fairfield County, CT) | 97.9% | $3,500 or more |
| ZIP 33953 (Charlotte County, FL) | 97.8% | $1,817 |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 01003 (Amherst Town city, MA) | 0% | $2,667 |
| ZIP 99703 (Fairbanks city, AK) | 0% | $2,132 |
| ZIP 99505 (Anchorage municipality, AK) | 0% | $2,504 |
| ZIP 93106 (University of California-Santa Barbara CDP, CA) | 0% | $2,725 |
| ZIP 85613 (Sierra Vista city, AZ) | 0% | $1,498 |
By median gross rent
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 67 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| ZIP 10005 (New York city, NY) | 17.1% | $3,500 or more |
| ZIP 10007 (New York city, NY) | 35% | $3,500 or more |
| ZIP 10018 (New York city, NY) | 11.8% | $3,500 or more |
| ZIP 10069 (New York city, NY) | 29.2% | $3,500 or more |
| ZIP 10280 (New York city, NY) | 32.4% | $3,500 or more |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 00913 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | 16.8% | $268 |
| ZIP 00653 (Guánica Municipio, PR) | 68.5% | $326 |
| ZIP 00670 (Las Marías Municipio, PR) | 73.6% | $355 |
| ZIP 00638 (Ciales Municipio, PR) | 70.9% | $404 |
| ZIP 00606 (Maricao Municipio, PR) | 76.9% | $405 |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,185 counties: the five with far more median gross rent than their homeownership rate would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Homeownership rate | Median gross rent | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| San Mateo County, CA | 59.1% | $2,893 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | 55.3% | $2,814 |
| Marin County, CA | 63.9% | $2,584 |
| Loudoun County, VA | 77.9% | $2,317 |
| Nassau County, NY | 81.9% | $2,195 |
| Below the line | ||
| Issaquena County, MS | 63.3% | $253 |
| Lake County, TN | 45.3% | $472 |
| Sioux County, ND | 46% | $466 |
| Mayagüez Municipio, PR | 50.7% | $456 |
| Todd County, SD | 44.9% | $537 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | -0.250 | 3,167 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.373 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.314 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.220 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | -0.547 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 292 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.205 | the link worked out inside each of 41 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.299 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 1.0e-104. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 7.2e-7. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 8.4e-104.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.52 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where homeownership rate rose most, did median gross rentmove too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | 3,176 | -0.08 | -0.10 | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 3,166 | -0.04 | -0.06 | — |
Both come from the American Community Survey, which asks a sample of households. Random error in a county's sample pushes both changes at once. So part of any agreement here is that shared error. It is shown, but not counted as a finding. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Median gross rent and Median household income — +0.64
- Median gross rent and Median home value — +0.59
- Homeownership rate and Median age — +0.58
- Homeownership rate and Share never married — -0.53
- Homeownership rate and Share aged 65 and over — +0.53
- Median gross rent and Share foreign-born — +0.49
- Median gross rent and Share White, not Hispanic — -0.46
- Homeownership rate and Share foreign-born — -0.46
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Homeownership rate and Median gross rent