Final Report On The Rental Study PDF
Final Report On The Rental Study PDF
Prepared by:
Philippine Statistical Research and Training Institute
March 2015
FINAL REPORT ON THE PROJECT “HOUSING RENTAL STUDY”
Before the extension of the Rent Control Act of 2009, HUDCC asked the assistance of
PSRTI to conduct the Rent Control Study. Section 6a of the Rent Control Act of 2009, cited
the things that need to be considered in determining the period of regulation, the
residential units to be covered and the adjusted allowable limit on rental increases per
annum. Being guided by this, the PSRTI conducted the Rent Control Study and submitted its
recommendation to HUDCC.
This Housing Rental Study was supposed to have been conducted within a
duration of six months, from July to December 2013 with the following Project
Objectives:
In Republic Act No. 9653, which expired on December 31, 2013, HUDCC was
tasked specifically to undertake the following:
1. Continue the Rental Regulation – The HUDCC is granted the authority to continue
the regulation of the rental of certain residential units, to determine the period of
regulation and its subsequent extensions if warranted, to determine the residential
units covered and to adjust the allowable limit on rental increases per annum, taking
into consideration, among others, National Statistics Office (NSO) census on rental
units, prevailing rental rates, the monthly inflation rate on rentals of the immediately
preceding year, and rental price index. (Section 6).
2. Review of the Rental Regulation – The HUDCC is mandated to conduct every three
(3) years from the effectivity of said Act a review of its implementation and a study
on rental regulation, and to submit to Congress its recommendation on whether a
continuing regulation is still necessary or deregulation is already warranted. (Section
15)
3. Identification of Program to Cushion Impact in the Event of a Regulation-Free
Rental Housing Market – The HUDCC and its attached agencies are mandated to
formulate and implement a two (2) year transition program which will provide for
a
Section 6 of the Rent Control Act of 2009 states that “... to determine the period of regulation and its
subsequent extensions if warranted, to determine the residential units covered and to adjust the allowable
limit on rental increases per annum, taking into consideration, among others, National Statistics Office
(NSO) census on rental units, prevailing rental rates, the monthly inflation rate on rentals of the
immediately preceding year, and rental price index.ˮ
The Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC) which has been reconstituted
into a new agency in December 2013 now named Philippine Statistical Research and
Training Institute, the research and training arm of the Philippine Statistical System, had
extend its assistance to conduct a research project in order to assist HUDCC in
accomplishing the tasks expected of the agency to deliver the following expected
outputs.
1.3 TIMETABLE
The six-month duration of the project as originally planned was extended until
December 2014 due to a number of factors necessary to address in order to have a
smooth implementation of the project. Foremost is the non-availability of basic data on
housing from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) as it was still being
processed at that time. As an alternative source of data, the Family Income and
Expenditures Survey (FIES) results were used. There was reprocessing of the FIES data
files as far back as possible to be able to extract specific information about the renters,
the amount of rent paid and income of the renters to be able to obtain their
affordability level. There was also an advantage of using the FIES although it was
conducted on a sample basis because the data required by the study are in the FIES data
files while in the CPH contains only the physical characteristics of housing like type of
building, year constructed, tenure status and type of construction materials of roofs and
walls. There was a need to make a recommendation on what course of action to take
since the Rental Law was expiring on December 31, 2013. Since the study was not even
half way due to delayed generation of needed information, it was recommended to
extend the implementation of the expiring rental law for another two years to give
adequate time for HUDCC to complete its recommendation on what course of action to
take within the period of two-year extension of the Law.
Even with the extension of the project, the technical reports on the rental
regulation and comparative study were submitted in March 2014. As part of the
background for this final report, we are reproducing the Executive summary for the two
studies as a jump-off point to understanding the reason why there was a need to
conduct a focus group discussion among developers and lessors because the two studies
earlier submitted did not include them. During the discussions with HUDCC officials
about the findings of the study like the affordability levels of house renters as well as the
recommendations on the 7% increase in rent among those renting higher than a certain
designated ceiling, the issue of how much is being paid by the lessors in terms of realty
taxes and income tax from renting out came about to justify the mandatory 7% ceiling
on rent that the present extend rental law is imposing. Since the budget of the project
can no longer absorb another big study on the realty taxes paid by lessors, a focus group
discussion was suggested to provide some information on the matter. So an FGD was
The technical study on rental regulation has provided vital information regarding
the regulation of rent of certain residential units based on the various rental laws
implemented since 1971, the most recent of which is RA 9653 otherwise known as Rent
Control Act of 2009 which expired on December 31, 2013. This is for the purpose of
assisting HUDCC to determine whether to continue the regulation of rental of certain
residential units; or determine the period of regulation and its subsequent extensions, if
warranted. Since time element was involved to make a recommendation before the
expiration of the said Act, HUDCC came up with Resolution No. 2, S. 2013 approved on
December 16, 2013 entitled “EXTENSIONS OF PERIOD OF REGULATION FOR THE RENT
CONTROL ACT COVERAGE” which allow the extension of rent control period until 31
December 2015 at status quo rates without prejudice to any adjustments that may be
necessary from the outcome of validation and consultation activities to be conducted.
Said Resolution was relayed to Senator Ralph Recto who authored a bill that would have
extended RA 9653 for another 5 years. This is in line with the authority granted to
HUDCC by RA 9653 “to continue the regulation of the rental of certain residential units,
to determine the period of regulation and its subsequent extensions if warranted, to
determine the residential units covered and to adjust the allowable limit on rental
increase per annum, taking into consideration, among others, census on rental units,
prevailing rental rates, the monthly inflation rate on rentals of the immediately
preceding year, and rental price index (Section 6, R.A. 9653) all generated by National
Statistics Office, now known as Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA (NSO)).
The validation of the number of renters from the 2010 Census of Population and
Housing (CPH) to affirm the number of renters obtained from the 2012 Family Income
and Expenditures Survey (FIES) cannot be done yet as processing of the housing portion
of the 2010 CPH has not been completed to date. Even if the estimates on the number
of renters from the 2010 CPH will be made available, further study has to be done to
estimate the standard errors of the number of renters obtained from the CPH and from
the FIES to determine the extent of difference of the two sample estimates. The FIES
estimates are statistically sound and reliable and considering that the socio-economic
characteristics of the renters (such as family income, family expenditures, amount of
rent paid, and monthly savings to derive affordability) are found in this survey, there is
no reason not to use the FIES data to present the findings of the study. The CPH does not
have these socio-economic characteristics to satisfy the objectives of the study. The
measure of reliability of estimates can be an entirely independent study which the newly
organized PSA has to address since it is a technical matter involving the CPH and FIES
sampling designs.
The comparative study has provided actual rent paid by all renters in the country
which provided concrete basis in making decisions to determine the residential units
covered and to adjust the allowable limit on rental increase per annum taking into
consideration housing units occupied by renters, prevailing rental rates, monthly
inflation rates immediately preceding the year and affordability of families renting. In
line with the provisions of Section 2 of RA 9653, declaring “the State shall continue to
protect housing tenants in the lower income brackets and other beneficiaries from
unreasonable rent increases” and on the basis of the data gathered from the 2012 FIES,
the following courses of action is submitted for consideration.
(1) Areas covered are classified into three: National Capital Region (NCR), other
highly urbanized cities (OHUCs) and other areas.
(2) The rate of rental increase shall be 3.0% (average inflation rate in 2013) per
annum for families renting at the rate of less than Php2,000 a month. There
are a total of 807,095 renters to be benefitted by this reduction in rent
increase representing 52.2% of total renters;
(3) The rate of rental increase for the rest of the renters shall not be more than
7% but not less than 3.0% annually;
(4) The ceiling rate for NCR shall be less than Php10,000 a month; OHUCs shall
be less than Php8,000 a month and all Other Areas, less than Php5,000 a
month. These ceiling rates will exclude rents beyond them and will not be
covered by rent regulation, which is approximately 5% of total renters in the
country.
(5) All rental housing units beyond those ceiling rates will not be covered by the
new Rent Control Act. Allow market forces to determine the rental increase
and ceiling rate. This is advantageous for real estate developers because they
can have their housing units rented out at market prices.
All families belonging to the low income group in NCR, OHUCs and Other Areas, on
the average, have negative savings monthly. Hence, they cannot afford to avail of
housing loans. However, families in the low income group in OHUCs can still avail of
the socialized housing program of government if they are qualified. This is also true
for those low income families in Other Areas.
The lowest rental class of Less than Php1,000 a month reported an average rent of
Php527 where one-fifth (20%) of the total families or 309,287 families are involved.
Monthly Income
Average income per month:
NCR: Php27,246;
OHUCs: Php23,138; and
OAs: Php20,794
Average Income per month by Economic Class:
a) Low Income:
NCR = Php10,490; OHUCs = Php8,306; Other Areas = Php8,455
b) Middle Income:
NCR = Php18,851; OHUCs = Php16,272; Other Areas = Php16,803
c) High Income :
NCR = Php40,031; OHUCs = Php40,485; Other Areas= Php34,444
Affordability level
Estimated Amount Available for housing by Area:
NCR= Php8,068; OHUCs = Php6,398; Other Areas = Php5,428
Estimated Amount Available by Economic group and by Area
a) Low Income:
NCR = Php47; OHUCs = Php859; Other Areas= Php347
b) Middle income:
NCR = Php3,276; OHUCs = Php3,120; Other Areas= Php3,106
c) High Income:
NCR = Php15,236; OHUCs = Php14,227; Other Areas = Php12,469
On December 18, 2013 during a Senate hearing, the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) reported to Senator Ralph Recto, author of
a bill extending the Rent Control Act 2009 (RA 9653), that the Council of HUDCC, headed
by Vice President Jejomar C. Binay III, has approved Resolution No. 2, S. 2013 to extend
the same for two more years. Said Law stipulates that provisions expire by December 31,
2013. The basis for this action is the preliminary results of the study of Statistical
Research and Training Center1 on Rental Regulation which is part of the major outputs
being undertaken through the research project entitled “Rental Control Study”
implemented for the HUDCC.
1
By virtue of Republic Act 10625 and its implementing rules and regulation signed in December 2013, SRTC
is now called the Philippine Statistical Research and Training Institute or PSRTI.
The first day was devoted to the lecture on basic statistics. On the second day,
each participant was given a USB wherein it contains the software CSPRO which was
used in the estimation of housing needs. In the USB are data files of individual renters
showing their geographic location and selected data for the estimation of housing
needs.
An evaluation of the training program and resource persons, including the results
of the pre- and post self-assessment are summarized as follows:
A. COURSE EVALUATION
The following is the summary report of the training program evaluation given
by the participants in the first batch of training course:
a. For the question - “Please try to recall what you have expected of this course.
Now that you are through with the course, to what extent were your
expectations met?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
For those who answered “Partly” or “Not at all,” the following are the
reasons provided why your expectations not/partly met?:
Still needs to master use of excel and other programs so we could easily catch up
with the discussion
There are still some concepts which were not clearly explained
b. For the question - “How useful do you think would this training course be to you
in relation to your job?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
For those who answered “Of limited use” or “Not useful,” the following reasons
were provided:
Training is technical, I am in Finance Group
I belong to a group that does not need to project the housing needs of our client
in terms of figure. We cater more on the social aspect of it
c. For the question - “What do you think of the duration of the whole training
course?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
d. For the question - “How do you feel about the distribution of time among the
different aspects of the training program?ˮ the responses are summarized as
follows:
e. For the question - “What extent you have been satisfied with the following
aspects of this training program?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
f. For the question - “What other training programs do you still need after this
course?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
Basic excel and CS Pro so we could easily apply the data on housing
Intensive and detailed course on housing needs and the programs /application
tools mastery
Additional training on CS Pro
CS Pro 5.0
Advance stage regarding the course for further knowledge
More CS Pro Database
I really have no idea, probably if it is possible if simple terms should be used
considering that the topic itself is already very technical
g. For the question - “Please give your suggestions on how future training of this
kind may be improved.?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
Step by step visuals procedures may be helpful some can easily forget the
procedure especially in excel and CS Pro
Conduct a pre-evaluation the target participants so that you would know what
are the specific modules that will be used
More hands-on
I suggest you consider the background (work and educational background/skills)
of each participant in order to tailor fit every presentation according to their
background
The following is the summary report of the lecturers’ evaluation given by the
participants of the first batch of the training course:
STANDARD
ITEM FOR EVALUATION MEAN MIN. MAX.
DEVIATION
1. The lecturer displayed a thorough knowledge of the
subject matter. 8.47 1.12 6 10
2. The topics were presented in a clear and organized
manner. 8.24 1.03 6 10
3. The lecturer generally asked for and responded to
student opinion. 8.29 1.10 6 10
4. Questions raised by the students were answered
convincingly. 8.24 1.30 6 10
5. The lecturer seemed to know when the trainees did not
understand the topic. 8.24 1.15 6 10
6. The lecturer was able to make the session interesting
and enjoyable. 8.12 0.99 6 10
7. The lecturer was an effective speaker. 8.29 1.26 6 10
8. The lecturer's goals and objectives for the course were
made clear. 8.12 1.05 6 10
9. Announced course objectives and what was actually
taught were in agreement. 8.18 1.24 6 10
10. The same lecturer should handle the topic in the next
training programs. 8.29 1.16 6 10
Other Comments/Recommendations/Observations:
Provide more hands on application
More trainings with you ma'am
At the beginning of each course the participants are given a self assessment
to gauge their level of knowledge on a certain topic covered in the course and at the
end of each course, they were also given the same assessment. The results of their
pre – and post-test were matched to determine their knowledge gain on the topics
covered in the training course.
Results of the pre- and post-test for the three training courses are shown in
the next tables. The succeeding tables show that the participants gained a better
understanding in all of the topics covered in each training course as can be seen in
their average post test exam, which are greatly higher than their average pre-test
exam results.
ASSESSMENT
SUBJECT
PRE POST
1. Census of Population and Housing (CPH) 2.33 3.00
2. Descriptive Statistics using population and housing data
2.1 Mean (Arithmetic mean) 2.44 3.12
2.2 Median 2.38 3.06
2.3 Mode 2.31 3.13
2.4 Decile, Percentile, Quartile 2.33 2.94
2.5 Ratios and proportions, Density of population per unit area,
2.38 2.94
percentage distribution
2.6 Range 2.27 2.76
2.7 Standard deviation 2.00 2.71
3. Family Income and Expenditures Survey 2.60 3.33
4. Monthly Price survey of Retail Prices of Commodities and Services
4.1 Consumer Price Index (CPI) 2.19 3.18
4.2 Inflation Rate defined 2.19 3.29
4.3 Purchasing Power of the Peso 2.19 3.29
5. Estimation of Housing Needs 2.06 2.76
OVERALL MEAN 2.28 3.04
Attachment 1 are the training materials distributed for Batch 1 of the training
course.
The second batch training was attended by middle managers of HUDCC for three
days, from November 10-12, 2014, at Bayview Park Hotel. There are 18 trainees that
attended the second batch. The first day was devoted to basic statistics lecture and on
the second and third day, the class was divided into 5 groups to work on the housing
needs estimation of different areas. Each group was closely assisted by SRTC staff how
to use the software where each trainee was used a netbook/laptop for the workshop.
Also, each trainee was provided with a USB wherein the copy of CSPro and data files on
housing are provided. Each group is required to present the output on required
tabulations on housing needs estimates using CSPro software and MS Excel. Unlike the
first group that did not present their output in the workshop due to lack of time, the
second group really finished the training course successfully and presented their
workshop outputs. Each group presented their outputs to the consultants who were
there to observe and listen to the presentation.
An evaluation of the training program and resource persons, including the results
of the pre- and post self-assessment are summarized as follows:
The following is the summary report of the training program evaluation given
by the participants in the second batch of training course:
a. For the question - “Please try to recall what you have expected of this course.
Now that you are through with the course, to what extent were your
expectations met?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
For those who answered “Partly” or “Not at all,” the following are the reasons
provided why your expectations not/partly met?:
how can we apply this to our related works if trainings are conducted under LSP
practice makes perfect
I am not sure of its applicability to our ISP training
limited time. Trained beyond time
it was more of limitations on my part that my expectations were not met. Im
handicapped in math operations
b. For the question - “How useful do you think would this training course be to you
in relation to your job?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
For those who answered “Of limited use” or “Not useful,” the following reason were
provided:
present work assignment do not deal with the projection of housing needs
Our group handles various requests, we prepare endorsement/referral letters to
concerned agencies
c. For the question - “What do you think of the duration of the whole training
course?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
ASPECT (1) (2) (3) (4)
Too long Just right Too short
Duration 0 8 7
d. For the question - “How do you feel about the distribution of time among the
different aspects of the training program?ˮ the responses are summarized as
follows:
f. For the question - “What other training programs do you still need after this
course?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
need to know how the study on rental control study and the date being
processed and how to apply the method
how the rental control study being processed computerization or any application
Data Management
Interpretative writing (in relation to the external affairs of the agency)
EIRR/FIRR Evaluation
advance excel
g. For the question - “Please give your suggestions on how future training of this
kind may be improved.?ˮ the responses are summarized as follows:
participants should have basic knowledge of excel
Please Add basic lecture on excel program
need current census on population relative to housing needs, household and
other relevant sources needed in the calculation of housing needs and projected
housing
more organized step by step during actual lecture by using any statistic
application
The attendees/participants must have an up to date computer (He he he)
The following is the summary report of the lecturers’ evaluation given by the
participants of the second batch of the training course:
STANDARD
ITEM FOR EVALUATION MEAN MIN. MAX.
DEVIATION
1. The lecturer displayed a thorough knowledge of the
7.93 1.79 4 10
subject matter.
2. The topics were presented in a clear and organized
7.47 2.03 3 9
manner.
3. The lecturer generally asked for and responded to
7.80 1.86 4 10
student opinion.
4. Questions raised by the students were answered
7.87 1.85 4 10
convincingly.
5. The lecturer seemed to know when the trainees did not
7.87 1.85 4 10
understand the topic.
6. The lecturer was able to make the session interesting
7.27 2.09 3 10
and enjoyable.
7. The lecturer was an effective speaker. 7.47 1.73 4 10
8. The lecturer's goals and objectives for the course were
7.53 1.64 4 9
made clear.
9. Announced course objectives and what was actually
7.80 1.74 4 10
taught were in agreement.
10. The same lecturer should handle the topic in the next
7.87 1.73 4 10
training programs.
Other Comments/Recommendations/Observations:
Given that the training sked has been extended to 3 days, activities should be
limited until 6 pm
More related trainings in the future
The parameters were not defined first. The lecturers went straight to the
presentation of the process, most of the participants could not catch up
I enjoyed the whole duration of the training and gained a lot of knowledge. The
lecturers/trainers are very friendly and approachable. Thanks for the knowledge
you'd share to me. God bless us all.
In case there is a third batch to provide the participants with a summary /list of
formulas used in the computation. Also, on CSPRO considering most of the
At the beginning of each course the participants are given a self assessment
to gauge their level of knowledge on a certain topic covered in the course and at the
end of each course, they were also given the same assessment. The results of their
pre – and post-test were matched to determine their knowledge gain on the topics
covered in the training course.
Results of the pre- and post-test for the three training courses are shown in
the next tables. The succeeding tables show that the participants gained a better
understanding in all of the topics covered in each training course as can be seen in
their average post test exam, which are greatly higher than their average pre-test
exam results.
The following is the summary table of participants’ pre and post test exam for
the second batch of the training course:
ASSESSMENT
SUBJECT
PRE POST
1. Census of Population and Housing (CPH) 2.40 3.43
2. Descriptive Statistics using population and housing data
2.1 Measures of Central Tendency (Mean, Median, Mode) 1.75 3.20
2.2 Measures of Location (Decile, Percentile, Quartile) 1.69 3.20
2.3 Measures of Variation (Range, Standard deviation) 1.75 3.20
2.4 Ratios and proportions, Density of population per unit area,
2.07 3.40
percentage distribution
3. Family Income and Expenditures Survey 2.43 3.40
4. Monthly Price survey of Retail Prices of Commodities and Services
4.1 Consumer Price Index (CPI) 1.88 3.13
Attachment 2 are the training materials distributed for Batch 2 of the training
course.
3. REPORT ON THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD) FOR HOUSING LESSORS AND
DEVELOPERS
Results of this FGD will validate the results of the study on rental law and
comparative study as far as rent levels are concerned and results on the taxes paid may
provide an idea of the cost of operation relative to house renting. The information that
may be obtained may be useful to HUDCC in revising the provisions of the Rent Control
Law of 2009 in the future.
Two types of questionnaires were designed for the FGD, one for the developers,
see Attachment 1 and one for the lessors, Attachment 2. These questionnaires were
filled out by those who came for the discussion. There were 20 developers and lessors
who cooperated in the accomplishment of the questionnaires. Questions which were
not answered were skipped in the summarization.
Q4-5. How many years have you been a lessor?; Location of your residential housing
unit/s for leasing/renting
about 16-20 years in the business and have units for lease practically all over the
country.
Q12-13. How much is the rate of your housing unit/s for rent/lease?
Rental rate: Php8,000 - Php14,999. The condo is being rented-out for
Php50,000/month.
Rental rate: usually about 10-15T and increase is about 5-7% every 2 years. Any
succeeding increase is included in the contract.
Q14-15. Reason for increasing rates
Intended increase is based on:
maintenance expenses and the condition and size of the unit
building and fire code requirements and other government requirements.
Proposed reforms:
1. Government support to lessors through incentives i.e. tax discounts, tax
exemption for old structures, tax exemption as prerequisite to formalize lessors’
business;
2. Identification of government agency to regulate and monitor the rentals; housing
units to be rented-out should be standardized/regulated; and
3. Revision of the coverage of the amount of the rental from Php10,000 to
Php5,000.
SHDA and OSHDP have no distinction in their functions. Both have members in
different areas. Their members are developers and lessors at the same time.
CREBA and NREA are concerned mostly in marketing. Also, SHDA and OSHDP are
involved in drafting policies on the housing sector.
In the Rent Control presentation at the Coconut Palace in 2013, both OSHDP and
SHDA were technically represented since both sit at the HUDCC Council as
housing sector representatives. There just might have been a problem in
cascading the information to the current participants.
SHDA said that they agree for the need of a Rent Control Law extension.
However, in the Law, the number of persons per unit should be specified.
Session Coordinator represented by Ms. Magtulis of PSRTI informed the
participants that the role of PSRTI in the project is only to recommend the rent
ceiling rate, on the basis of the technical study, but not in revising the details and
coverage of the law. However, their suggestions can form part of the agency’s
recommendations. The results of this FGD are needed to strengthen those
recommendations. The law focuses on the low income group but the view of the
lessors should also be considered.
Both SHDA and OSHDP have residential units for single, condominium and
apartment for rent. Both are about 16-20 years in the business and have units for
lease practically all over the country.
SHDA emphasized that the rental rates vary from one area to another and
requested PSRTI to come up with scheme to compare rates in each area. They
also inquired about the identified HUCs. The participants advised that this matter
is already included in the report to the HUDCC and a copy of the report will be
emailed to both OSHDP and SHDA as long as the HUDCC will allow it. The HUDCC
representative said that since their inputs are needed for policy-making, HUDCC
might provide a copy of the report.
SHDA asked why NCR has a separate analysis from among HUCs. The answer to
this question was that NCR has different characteristics from other HUCs.
For question number 6 (Type of Housing unit/s for rent), SHDA said that the
developers build units but not all will be sold. They retain some units for rent.
Attachment 2 shows the basic questionnaire which the lessors answered and
discussed during the FGD. Summary of their responses in every question are shown
below. Questions that were not answered by the respondents were not included.
1. There are 9 lessors were present during the FGD. Three (3) of them or 33.33%
were males while six (6) of them or 66.7% were females.
2. Two (2) or 22.2% of the lessors are aged 21-40 years old. While most of them or
55.6% are aged 41-60 years old. Only two (2) of them or 22.2% are 60 yrs. old &
over.
3. Most of the respondents or 55.6% have been lessors for 1 year to 10 years. While
two (2) or 22.2% of the respondents has been a lessor for less than 11 to 20
years. Only one (1) respondent or 11.1% of the respondents has been a lessor for
less than 1 year. Also, there is only one (1) or 11.1% of the respondents have an
extensive experience as a lessor, which is for 21 to 25 years.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE AS FREQUENCY PERCENT <CF
A LESSOR
Less than 1 year 1 11.1 11.1
4. Most of the lessors or 55.6% of them own one (1) residential unit for rent/lease
and three (3) of them or 33.3% of the respondents own three (3) residential units
for rent. Only one of them own two (2) residential units for rent. This means that
the nine (9) lessors invited in the FGD own a total of sixteen (16) residential units
that are for rent or lease.
NO. OF
RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY PERCENT
UNITS FOR RENT
1 unit 5 55.6
2 units 1 11.1
3 units 3 33.3
Total 9 100.0
5. The location of the sixteen (16) residential units owned by the nine (9) lessors are
mostly found within Metro Manila - Pasig City, Quezon City, Caloocan City,
Malabon, Makati City, Muntinlupa City and Taguig City. Other residential units
for rent/lease owned by the invited lessors are located in Cavite and Rizal.
Most (62.5%) of the residential units for rent owned by the invited lessors are
categorized as Row House/Accesoria/Townhouse/Apartment. The other
residential units owned by the lessors are categorized as single, duplex and
condominium, having two frequencies or 12.5% for each type of housing unit.
7. Most (35.%) of the residential units have floor area of 80 to less than 100 square
meters.
8. Lessors who own several residential units, impose different conditions for the
different residential unit that they have for leasing. Some residential units are for
lease with contract but some do not have a contract. As a summary, most
(56.3%) of the residential units are for rent without a contract and only 43.8%
impose contract with lessee.
All lessors do not provide official receipt for all their residential units. They only
provide acknowledgment receipt to renters.
11. Lessors are asked if they have any preference in accepting renters. Their
preference are summarized as follows:
Most of them (or 88.9% of the lessors) do not have any preference on the sex of
the household head.
All of the lessors do not have any preference on the age of the household head.
Most of them (or 66.7% of the lessors) preferred a renter with 1-3 children and
33.3% of them preferred a renter without child.
Lessors shared in the FGD that their usual preference in accepting renters are
based on the renter's capacity to pay and the number of occupants, especially
the number of children which is sometimes the reason for having a high cost of
renovation/repair.
12. Rental rate of most of the residential housing units ranges from Php8,000 to
Php14,999. Condominium is being rented-out for Php50,000/month.
13. Most of the lessors do not impose rental increase. Only one lessor noted that she
imposes an increase of 10% every 2 years for the townhouse and a fix rate
increase of Php200 every 2 years for the apartment she owns.
The only lessor who imposes rental increase identified that repair and
maintenance cost of housing units as the reason for imposing increase in rent.
14. Lessor are also asked how much do they spend on the following items, on the
average: (1) Costs incurred for the repair/maintenance of rental housing units;
For the costs incurred for the repair/maintenance of rental housing units, most
of the lessors identified that they spend approximately Php5,000 - Php10,000, on
the average. Other amounts expended for repair/maintenance of rental housing
units are shown in the following table:
For the costs incurred for the payment of real estate tax, the lessors have
identified different amount from each other. However there are two amounts
that we can consider as the two common responses, these are Php1,000 and
Php2,000. Other amounts expended for payment of real estate tax are shown in
the following table:
All of the lessors do spend any amount for estate management as they are the
ones who manages their own real estate and housing unit. They also do not pay
any license/permit. This is consistent with their answer to question number 8,
which results shows that all lessors do not have permit to operate or were not
registered from LGU.
15. Five lessors (or 55.6%) mentioned that they are aware of the Rent Control Law of
2009.
Among the five lessors who partly knew the contents of the Rent Control Law of
2009, four (4) of them shares the information about the Rent Control Law of
2009 with other lessors.
17. The lessors identified some proposed reforms or suggested some items to be
included in the Rent Control Law of 2009. These are as follows:
revision of the coverage of the amount of the rental from Php10,000 to
Php5,000;
revisit the classification in rental law;
housing units to be rented-out should be standardized/regulated;
government support to lessors by encouraging lessors to register through giving
of incentives in the form of tax discounts, tax exemption for old structures, or tax
exemption as prerequisite to formalize lessors’ business; and
to identify the specific government agency who will be responsible in regulating
and monitoring the rentals.
In the Plenary Session, Ms. Reyes discussed some of the results and analysis
from the Rent Control Study.
From the point of view of the developers-lessors, there is a need for the rental
control law. However, the following should be considered in the amendment:
1. The coverage of the rental law should exclude bed spacers and dormitories as
renters.
2. There shall be special provision for temporary transients. Aside from area of the unit,
the location of the rental units should be considered.
3. The lessor should also be protected by the rental law. For example, if the renter has
illegal activities, there should be a provision that illegal activities be one of the
grounds for ejectment.
4. The rental law should have provision for fixed government rates.
5. The rent of lease of housing units ranges from P8,000 to P15,000 and increase is
about 5-7% every 2 years. Any succeeding increase should be included in the
contract. Increases should be based on maintenance expenses and the condition and
size of the units.
6. Estate management is needed only if there is large number of housing units for rent.
They did not specify, however, how many is “large”.
7. The developers expect incentives or fee holiday from government considering that
fees continue to increase. Building and fire code requirements are reasons for
imposing increases. Every year they are required to buy fire extinguishers which can
last up to six years, if not used, being supplied by the Bureau of Fire protection at
twice the price.
8. The floor area being rented should be included in the government survey instrument
such as the FIES. The rental law study should also put emphasis on the cost of
investors in building houses. There should be an in-depth review of the parameters
with respect to putting units for rent. Developer representatives of SHDA are willing
to provide their data provided that the study group specifically asks for the data that
are needed.
From the point of view of lessors, they have identified some suggested reforms to be
included in the amendments to the Rental law, as follows:
1. Revision of the coverage of the rental law from P10,000 to P5,000. Based on the
Rental Study, if the ceiling rate be reduced to P5,000 per month, the coverage will be
reduced to only 52% of total renters in the country.
5.1 INTRODUCTION/RATIONALE
To ascertain shelter security for the Filipino families and provide access to
affordable and decent housing especially for the poor and vulnerable groups as informal
settlers, female-headed families and senior-citizen headed families, the Philippine
government has undertaken continuing and expanded programs of encouraging the
development of affordable housing for ownership and for renting. It is in this light that
government policies on rental reforms are geared towards protection of housing tenants
from unreasonable rent increases.
On December 18, 2013 during a Senate hearing, the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) reported to Senator Ralph Recto, author of
a bill extending the Rent Control Act 2009 (RA 9653), that the Council of HUDCC, headed
by Vice President Jejomar C. Binay III, has approved Resolution No. 2, S. 2013 to extend
the same for two more years. Said Law stipulates that provisions expire by December 31,
2013. The basis for this action is the preliminary results of the study of Philippine
Statistical Research and Training Institute (PSRTI) on Rent Regulation which is part of the
major outputs being undertaken through the research project entitled “Rental Control
Study” implemented for the HUDCC.
The success of effective strategies and convergent action plan by and between
the government and private sector to address challenges depend largely on how reliable
the existing housing statistics, to start with. This study would show statistics on the
socio-economic conditions of the renting families particularly the expected vulnerable
groups which are the female-headed families and senior-citizen-headed families. It is
intended to show if the said target groups are indeed vulnerable, needing further
assistance or have reached a level to conclude that they are not.
This research study is also within the purview of the Philippine Plan for Gender
Responsive Development to address gender issues as a small contribution to gender and
development planning.
1. The term families and households are used interchangeably in this study as
adopted in the Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES) since the
Results of the 2012 FIES show that there are about 21.5 million families in the
country. Of this number, about 77.4% are male-headed or about 16.6 million families
while a minority of 22.6% are female-headed or about 4.9 million families. By age,
there are about 15.7 million household heads with age below 60 years old,
representing 73.3% and the rest, being senior citizens totalling about 5.7 million
families or 26.7%.
Focusing on the female-headed families, from among the 4.9 million families,
more than half belonged to middle income level, followed by high-income group of
about 30% while low-income group consisted of about 20%. For the 5.7 million
families headed by senior citizens, about 51.6% belonged to the middle-income, just
like the female-headed households. This is followed by those from low-income
bracket of about 24.9% and following closely is the high income families comprising
of 23.5%.
Taking into consideration the tenure status of families in the country, about
69% are owner/owner-like possession of house and lot. Only about 7% are renting
families which is about 1.5 million.
These renting families are the focus of the Rent Control Law or RA 9653 of
2009 (extended until 2015) who need to be protected from unreasonable rent
increases and who may need assistance to own their housing units and not anymore
pay rent, if so desired.
Among the families renting, an estimate of about 1.1 million are male-headed
families or 74%, while about 404,161 families or about 26% are female-headed. By
broad age group, about 1.4 million or about 89% are headed by those below 60
years old while only 11% or around 163,458 are senior citizens. It is worth noting
that female-headed senior citizens across the country who are renting comprised
Table 2. Distribution of Renting Families by Per Capita Income Decile, Sex and Age Group, Philippines:
2012
Table 2A. Renting Families by Per Capita Income Decile, Target Groups, Philippines: 2009 and 2012
2009 2012
Ratio Ratio
of Aged Aged 60 Female of Aged Aged 60 Female
Income Decile 60 and aged % 60 and aged %
Female above and 60 and Distn Female above and 60 and Distn
above above
to aged above to aged above
<60 <60
Philippines 321,094 37.7 128,390 48,358 100.0 404,161 45.5 163,458 74,419 100.0
Low-Income 15,964 36.6 11,474 4,194 8.7 16,824 35.4 12,740 4,509 6.0
First Decile 2,232 2,665 762 4,090 2,281 544
Second Decile 7,153 6,157 2,399 5,194 5,215 2,218
Third Decile 6,578 2,651 1,033 7,539 5,243 1,747
Middle-Income 121,238 32.5 66,826 21,725 44.9 198,457 48.9 87,050 42,596 57.2
Fourth Decile 13,533 6,211 1,399 21,868 8,895 4,362
Fifth Decile 19,055 11,916 4,449 24,460 12,404 6,295
Sixth Decile 17,430 11,365 1,304 38,977 20,179 12,474
From the 1.5 million families renting, 82.5% of them paid monthly rents of
less than Php4,000.00, 85.1% for male headed households and 75% for female
headed households or a cumulative total of 1.275 million families. Senior citizens
household heads who paid an average rent of less than P4000 per month numbered
157,503, which is about 96% of the total senior citizens head. Of this number, 54,883
are senior female-headed households, which is 34.85. The said monthly rent level is
below the ceiling set by Rental Control Law of about Php12,000.00 per month in
highly urbanized cities including National Capital Region, and Php6,000.00 per month
in other areas during the year under review. Same can be traced in the results of
2009 FIES (Table 3A).
Table 3. Distribution of Renting Families by Rental Class, Sex and Age Group, Philippines: 2012
Table 3A. Renting Families by Rental Class, Target Groups, Philippines: 2009 and 2012
2009 2012
Rental Class Female Female
Aged 60 Aged 60
Female aged 60 Female aged 60
and above and above
and above and above
Total Philippines 321,094 128,390 48,358 404,161 163,458 74,419
Less than P1000 52,635 33,413 12,758 72,248 37,121 20,941
P1000 - P1999 81,683 31,927 10,620 109,188 37,705 15,889
P2000 - P3999 101,431 29,742 12,483 122,034 52,677 18,053
P4000 - P4999 30,296 5,768 2,855 26,983 8,186 6,954
P5000 - P7999 36,763 14,911 4,387 51,370 20,456 9,745
P8000 - P9999 8,124 5,056 1,901 9,044 1,156 608
P10000 - P14999 5,812 5,241 1,681 10,456 3,266 1,498
P15000 and over 4,350 2,332 1,673 2,838 2,892 731
Cumulative Percentage Less Than (F<)
Less than P1000 16.4 26.0 26.4 17.9 22.7 28.1
P1000 - P1999 41.8 50.9 48.3 44.9 45.8 49.5
P2000 - P3999 73.4 74.1 74.2 75.1 78.0 73.7
P4000 - P4999 82.9 78.5 80.1 81.8 83.0 83.1
P5000 - P7999 94.3 90.2 89.1 94.5 95.5 96.2
P8000 - P9999 96.8 94.1 93.1 96.7 96.2 97.0
P10000 - P14999 98.6 98.2 96.5 99.3 98.2 99.0
P15000 and over 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: 2009 and 2012 Family Income and Expenditures Survey
Based on 2012 results, from among the total number of female-heads, it can
be traced that most of them have gone through formal education. About 31% each
are college and high school graduates. Most of senior citizen heads also went
through formal education. Annex 2 tables also show that for both FIES years under
review, across all per capita national income deciles from low income to high
income, female and senior citizen heads of gone through formal education.
Table 6. Distribution of Renting Families by Highest Educational Attainment, Sex and Age Group,
Philippines: 2012
1. Most of the female-headed and senior citizen headed renting families, including
their combination; belong to middle-income and high income groups of families.
2. Average monthly rental rate of target groups are too low compared to the rental
rate ceiling prescribed. Change of rental rate over three years (2009-2012) is on
the downtrend.
3. The average proportion of rent paid to average monthly income is considered
above average, much higher than the national average which means that the
target groups are paying higher rent per month than majority of renters
To further refine the recommendation that PSRTI submitted to HUDCC regarding the
Rent control Act of 2009 for 2015:
1. The rental law should cover all residential units in the country with monthly rent
of less than Four Thousand Pesos (Php4,000.00). Housing units with monthly
rental of Four Thousand Pesos (Php4,000.00) or more should not be regulated
anymore and just allow the market forces, such as prevailing rental rate; demand
for residential unit; availability of residential unit; competition between and
among lessors; etc., to determine the rental rate. This suggestion is based on the
results of the data analysis from the 2012 Family Income and Expenditures
Survey (FIES) and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with housing unit lessors and
housing developers.
The following table shows the actual rent paid by renting families in 2012 where,
on the average, there are about 82.5% or 1.274 million households renting less
than Php4,000.00 a month. The households that are most benefited by this
suggestion are those living “Other areas” consisting of 41.7% among renters but
with the lowest average income among the three broad areas. Proportionally,
NCR reported the lowest percentage of beneficiaries but comprised 44% or
680,331 of total household renters of 1,545,227 in the country. It may be
mentioned that NCR renting households reported the highest average income
among the three areas under study.
National Capital Region (NCR) 680,331 44.0 490,198 72.1 190,133 27.9
Other Highly Urbanized Cities (HUC) 219,778 14.2 181,163 82.4 38,615 17.6
All Other Areas (OA) 645,118 41.7 603,427 93.5 41,691 6.5
Source of basic data: 2012 Family Income and Expenditures Survey, National Statistics Office (now Philippine
Statistics Authority).
2. On rental increase, it is proposed that the inflation rate in 2013 which was 3.0
per cent, on the average, be adopted for a period of two years, for 2014 and
2015. This is based on the FGD where lessors normally increase their housing
rental rate every two years for easy administration. The next rental increase rate
would be the inflation rate of 2014, which is 4.1% for years 2016 and 2017. It is
easier to administer only one rental rate of increase for all renting households
with rental rate less than Php4,000 a month, every two years.
Annex 1B: Distribution of Renting Families by National Per Capita Income Decile,
Combination of Sex and Age Group, Philippines: 2012
Male-Headed Renting Female-Headed
Families Renting Families
National Per Capita Total Families
Income Decile Families Renting Non- Senior- Non- Senior-
senior- Citizen senior- Citizen
Headed Headed Headed Headed
Total 21,476,446 1,545,227 1,052,027 89,040 329,742 74,419
Low-Income Families 6,443,165 124,342 99,287 8,230 12,315 4,509
First Decile 2,147,772 23,697 17,870 1,737 3,546 544
Second Decile 2,147,750 41,768 33,576 2,997 2,976 2,218
Third Decile 2,147,644 58,877 47,841 3,497 5,792 1,747
Middle-Income Families 10,738,007 889,033 646,122 44,454 155,861 42,596
Fourth Decile 2,147,306 110,452 84,050 4,534 17,507 4,362
Fifth Decile 2,147,818 140,651 110,083 6,108 18,165 6,295
Sixth Decile 2,147,719 181,686 135,003 7,705 26,504 12,474
Seventh Decile 2,147,812 220,424 156,460 14,231 40,604 9,130
Eight Decile 2,147,353 235,820 160,526 11,876 53,082 10,336
High-Income Families 4,295,273 531,852 306,617 36,355 161,567 27,313
Ninth Decile 2,147,368 270,270 163,648 16,646 73,673 16,303
Tenth Decile 2,147,905 261,583 142,969 19,710 87,893 11,010
No Post-
Number Elementary High High
National Per Capita formal College College graduate
of Graduate School School
Income Decile schoolin level Graduate (Phd/MA/
Families and below level Graduate
g MS)
Total 927,196 4,441 134,868 85,962 356,920 187,624 156,468 913
Low-Income Families 108,256 1,486 43,443 15,046 36,287 10,629 1,364 -
First Decile 24,605 813 13,888 3,325 5,399 1,181 - -
Second Decile 37,012 673 16,149 6,635 11,190 2,060 305 -
Third Decile 46,638 - 13,406 5,086 19,699 7,389 1,059 -
Middle-Income Families 546,889 2,955 81,280 61,149 254,678 105,415 40,900 512
Fourth Decile 64,468 - 16,543 7,494 30,128 8,286 2,017 -
Fifth Decile 92,590 - 19,637 13,990 39,047 16,130 3,786 -
Sixth Decile 115,516 698 19,084 12,876 56,515 15,856 10,488 -
Seventh Decile 128,039 - 14,167 15,775 55,533 30,320 11,734 512
Eight Decile 146,275 2,257 11,848 11,015 73,455 34,823 12,876 -
High-Income Families 272,052 - 10,145 9,766 65,955 71,580 114,204 401
Ninth Decile 145,008 - 5,787 8,034 41,313 44,203 45,670 -
Tenth Decile 127,044 - 4,358 1,732 24,642 27,377 68,534 401
No Post-
Number Elementary High High
National Per Capita formal College College graduate
of Graduate School School
Income Decile schoolin level Graduate (Phd/MA/
Families and below level Graduate
g MS)
Total 272,736 - 28,461 18,186 67,488 69,468 89,134 -
Low-Income Families 11,770 - 4,894 1,241 4,761 874 - -
First Decile 1,470 - 275 727 468 - - -
Second Decile 4,754 - 1,931 - 2,822 - - -
Third Decile 5,545 - 2,688 513 1,470 874 - -
Middle-Income
Families 99,513 - 17,643 9,299 29,230 25,872 17,470 -
Fourth Decile 12,134 - 4,097 1,624 3,090 2,440 884 -
Fifth Decile 14,605 - 3,976 2,811 3,421 3,123 1,274 -
Sixth Decile 16,127 - 2,858 2,489 6,637 2,339 1,804 -
Seventh Decile 22,029 - 4,964 785 6,159 6,914 3,207 -
Eight Decile 34,618 - 1,748 1,590 9,924 11,056 10,300 -
High-Income Families 161,453 - 5,924 7,646 33,497 42,722 71,664 -
Ninth Decile 65,175 - 5,487 5,229 19,240 13,157 22,061 -
Tenth Decile 96,279 - 436 2,417 14,257 29,565 49,603 -
No Post-
Number Elementary High High College
National Per Capita formal College graduate
of Graduate School School Graduat
Income Decile schoolin level (Phd/MA/
Families and below level Graduate e
g MS)
Total 80,032 1,722 25,754 4,131 18,862 15,077 14,486 -
Low-Income Families 7,280 276 3,954 661 2,113 276 - -
First Decile 1,903 276 828 - 524 276 - -
Second Decile 3,758 - 1,508 661 1,589 - - -
Third Decile 1,618 - 1,618 - - - - -
Middle-Income Families 45,101 1,447 18,206 3,470 11,617 8,422 1,939 -
Fourth Decile 4,812 - 3,187 - 561 1,065 - -
Fifth Decile 7,467 894 4,534 806 1,234 - - -
Sixth Decile 10,061 - 4,051 1,532 2,841 636 1,001 -
Seventh Decile 7,246 553 2,159 619 2,761 1,154 - -
Eight Decile 15,515 - 4,276 513 4,220 5,567 938 -
High-Income Families 27,652 - 3,595 - 5,132 6,379 12,547 -
Ninth Decile 13,416 - 889 - 2,910 4,554 5,064 -
Tenth Decile 14,236 - 2,706 - 2,222 1,825 7,483 -
* - 2nd visit only
No Post-
Number Elementary High High College
National Per Capita formal College graduate
of Graduate School School Graduat
Income Decile schoolin level (Phd/MA/
Families and below level Graduate e
g MS)
Total 48,358 1,454 20,482 3,679 10,080 6,193 6,469 -
Low-Income Families 4,194 1,454 2,189 551 - - - -
First Decile 762 414 348 - - - - -
Second Decile 2,399 449 1,400 551 - - - -
Third Decile 1,033 592 441 - - - - -
Middle-Income
Families 21,725 - 11,013 2,006 5,479 1,431 1,796 -
Fourth Decile 1,399 - 294 - 665 440 - -
Fifth Decile 4,449 - 1,793 617 1,560 - 479 -
Sixth Decile 1,304 - 1,304 - - - - -
Seventh Decile 5,392 - 3,216 632 1,057 487 - -
Eight Decile 9,181 - 4,406 757 2,196 505 1,317 -
High-Income Families 22,438 - 7,280 1,122 4,601 4,762 4,673 -
Ninth Decile 11,504 - 5,147 1,122 2,505 1,095 1,635 -
Tenth Decile 10,935 - 2,133 - 2,096 3,667 3,038 -
Post-
No gradu
National Per Capita Number formal Elementary High High Post College College ate
Income Decile of school- Graduate School School Secon- level Graduat (Phd/
Families ing and below level Graduate dary e MA/
MS)
Total 1,052,027 1,427 159,013 106,805 393,239 20,533 140,388 223,562 7,061
Low-Income Families 99,287 1,427 37,758 17,408 26,616 612 10,174 5,293 -
First Decile 17,870 830 8,200 4,571 2,629 - 570 1,071 -
Second Decile 33,576 597 11,189 6,024 9,030 - 5,277 1,460 -
Third Decile 47,841 - 18,370 6,813 14,957 612 4,327 2,763 -
Middle-Income Families 646,122 - 100,617 76,249 286,408 14,481 80,314 87,339 716
Fourth Decile 84,050 - 15,037 18,760 33,313 1,326 8,032 7,582 -
Fifth Decile 110,083 - 27,017 13,637 46,009 3,052 8,093 12,276 -
Sixth Decile 135,003 - 23,433 18,216 65,428 608 15,693 11,115 510
Seventh Decile 156,460 - 17,732 11,014 72,816 3,979 24,777 25,936 206
Eight Decile 160,526 - 17,398 14,622 68,843 5,515 23,718 30,430 -
High-Income Families 306,617 - 20,638 13,149 80,215 5,439 49,900 130,930 6,346
Ninth Decile 163,648 - 16,407 10,232 58,295 2,983 23,231 49,832 2,667
Tenth Decile 142,969 - 4,232 2,917 21,920 2,456 26,669 81,098 3,678
Post-
No gradu
Number Elementary High High Post
National Per Capita formal College College ate
of Graduate School School Secon-
Income Decile school- level Graduate (Phd/
Families and below level Graduate dary
ing MA/
MS)
Total 329,043 - 35,684 24,387 96,979 2,771 61,046 106,842 1,334
Low-Income Families 12,315 - 6,324 1,573 3,486 - 932 - -
First Decile 3,546 - 2,290 - 1,256 - - - -
Second Decile 2,976 - 1,957 605 - - 414 - -
Third Decile 5,792 - 2,076 968 2,230 - 518 - -
Middle-Income Families 155,162 - 24,687 15,662 55,548 1,617 25,106 32,542 -
Fourth Decile 17,507 - 1,643 4,736 8,991 - 2,137 - -
Fifth Decile 18,165 - 5,897 1,671 3,378 - 1,868 5,350 -
Sixth Decile 26,504 - 6,958 2,660 9,818 1,617 2,873 2,578 -
Seventh Decile 40,604 - 3,830 4,005 16,218 - 6,952 9,598 -
Eight Decile 52,383 - 6,359 2,589 17,144 - 11,276 15,016 -
High-Income Families 161,567 - 4,673 7,152 37,944 1,154 35,009 74,300 1,334
Ninth Decile 73,673 - 4,673 5,872 16,679 545 17,962 27,943 -
Tenth Decile 87,893 - - 1,280 21,265 609 17,047 46,358 1,334
Post-
No gradua
National Per Capita Number formal Elementary High High Post College College te
Income Decile of school- Graduate School School Secon- level Graduate (Phd/
Families ing and below level Graduate dary MA/
MS)
Total 89,040 581 21,716 8,260 28,862 - 9,947 19,125 549
Low-Income Families 8,230 - 5,142 538 1,283 - 1,268 - -
First Decile 1,737 - 1,040 - 696 - - - -
Second Decile 2,997 - 2,459 538 - - - - -
Third Decile 3,497 - 1,643 - 586 - 1,268 - -
Middle-Income Families 44,454 - 13,075 4,914 16,758 - 4,040 5,668 -
Fourth Decile 4,534 - 1,605 1,630 888 - 410 - -
Fifth Decile 6,108 - 1,657 606 1,442 - - 2,403 -
Sixth Decile 7,705 - 3,357 - 3,127 - 1,222 - -
Seventh Decile 14,231 - 3,440 1,042 5,796 - 1,905 2,047 -
Eight Decile 11,876 - 3,016 1,635 5,504 - 503 1,217 -
High-Income Families 36,355 581 3,499 2,808 10,822 - 4,639 13,457 549
Ninth Decile 16,646 - 3,499 2,808 5,802 - 2,616 1,920 -
Tenth Decile 19,710 581 - - 5,019 - 2,024 11,537 549
Post-
No gradu
Number Elementary High High Post
National Per Capita formal College College ate
of Graduate School School Secon-
Income Decile school- level Graduate (Phd/
Families and below level Graduate dary
ing MA/
MS)
Total 74,419 790 38,090 4,583 12,936 - 3,174 14,419 426
Low-Income Families 4,509 - 3,640 419 450 - - - -
First Decile 544 - 544 - - - - - -
Second Decile 2,218 - 1,349 419 450 - - - -
Third Decile 1,747 - 1,747 - - - - - -
Middle-Income Families 42,596 790 25,480 3,244 7,077 - 643 4,937 426
Fourth Decile 4,362 - 2,071 - 461 - - 1,830 -
Fifth Decile 6,295 - 4,021 1,360 271 - 643 - -
Sixth Decile 12,474 - 9,253 - 2,304 - - 916 -
Seventh Decile 9,130 790 4,095 1,884 1,935 - - - 426
Eight Decile 10,336 - 6,040 - 2,105 - - 2,191 -
High-Income Families 27,313 - 8,970 921 5,409 - 2,531 9,482 -
Ninth Decile 16,303 - 6,480 921 2,935 - 1,375 4,592 -
Tenth Decile 11,010 - 2,490 - 2,474 - 1,156 4,890 -