Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century

Transcription

rcap_cover_final
6/2/04
2:21 PM
Page 1
Still Living
Without the Basics
in the 21st Century
Analyzing the
Availability of Wa t e r
and Sanitation Services
in the United States
Rural Community Assistance Partnership
Still Living Without the Basics
Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................................1
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................3
Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century ......................................................................................3
Still Living Without the Basics: Analyzing the Availability of Water and Sanitation Services in the
United States.......................................................................................................................................................7
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................7
Methodological Layout of the Study...............................................................................................................8
Part I of the Analysis......................................................................................................................................8
Part II of the Analysis....................................................................................................................................9
Information Gaps ............................................................................................................................................10
Report Findings and Discussions ..................................................................................................................11
How Many People in the United States Live Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services?..............11
Who Are the People Living Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services?...........................................12
Rural – Urban Divide...................................................................................................................................13
Analysis by Race and Ethnicity...................................................................................................................16
In Which States Are Basic Water Services Most Lacking? ........................................................................26
State-Level Analysis......................................................................................................................................26
County-Level Analysis .................................................................................................................................26
Rural-Urban Analysis ...................................................................................................................................28
Ethnic Distribution ......................................................................................................................................29
Why Are Water and Sanitation Services Important? ..................................................................................34
Factors Affecting People Living Without Basic Services...........................................................................36
Socioeconomic Conditions .........................................................................................................................36
Ruralness........................................................................................................................................................38
Cost and Quality of Water and Sanitation Services.................................................................................39
Demographics...............................................................................................................................................40
Factors Influencing Trends in Access to Water and Sanitation................................................................40
Socioeconomic Immigration.......................................................................................................................40
Housing Development.................................................................................................................................41
What Has Been and Is Being Done to Address These Issues?.................................................................42
Ensuring That Water Infrastructure Is Adequately Maintained ...............................................................42
Key Program and Policy Concerns Related to These Issues.....................................................................44
State-by-State Analysis at County Level .......................................................................................................55
Explanation of Terms .....................................................................................................................................57
Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................... 199
i
Foreword
Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century is the culmination of nearly a year of research and
analysis that documents the availability of adequate water and sanitation service in U.S. homes. It is
based in large part on data from the 2000 decennial census, supplemented by other publicly available
information. This publication is a sequel, updating an analysis published in 1995 by the Rural
Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP, Inc.) that focused on data from the 1990 decennial
census.
In comparing these documents, two points stand out clearly. The efforts of the Rural Community
Assistance Partnership – and other agencies and organizations working tirelessly in thousands of
small rural communities – have paid off significantly. And still, much remains to be done.
The 1990 census showed that 405,855 rural households lacked complete indoor plumbing. Rural
households represented more than half of all U.S. homes that lacked adequate water and sanitation
services. By the 2000 census, 226,967 rural households were without complete indoor plumbing,
representing about one-third of the national total. This is real progress.
Despite the success to date, more than 600,000 residents of rural communities still do not have the
basic water and sanitation services the rest of us take for granted. It is no surprise that they are likely
to be economically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities, and geographically isolated.
There is much more to the story, of course. This report also looks at the quality of water and
sanitation services and the health consequences of inadequate service. Just as there is much to do,
there also is much to learn about the causes and effects of inadequate basic infrastructure.
The research, analysis, and writing for this report was done by Stephen Gasteyer, Ph.D., RCAP’s
Director of Community Development, and Rahul T. Vaswani, M.A., Research Associate at RCAP.
Their work was made possible by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water as well as U.S. EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utility Service’s Water and Environmental Programs.
As a nation, we have succeeded in bringing proper water and sanitation service to almost every
home. What’s left is likely to be the most difficult part of making water and sanitation services truly
universal.
Randolph A. Adams, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.
1
Executive Summary
The United States has achieved remarkable success in improving access to modern water and
sanitation services for its citizens in the past five decades. Today only 0.64 percent of U.S.
households lack complete plumbing facilities. This is a monumental leap from 1950, when more
than one-fourth of the nation, and more than half of all rural residents, lacked those facilities. Yet
we have more to accomplish – and in more complex ways.
The U.S. 2000 Census reveals that more than 1.7 million people in the United States, 670,986
households, still lack the basic plumbing facilities that most of us have come to take for granted. To
some observers, these Americans may appear to be lost or insignificant within the larger population,
but the hardships they endure in their daily lives are very real.
It may seem reasonable to assume that people who live in the 21st century with services more
characteristic of a bygone era choose to live in places or situations where modern services are not
available, or to live in such conditions only temporarily. A closer look at the numbers and trends
reveals the opposite. A combination of circumstances – some of them persistent – have excluded
these people from the reach of development.
Some of the people affected are the poorest of the poor, living in sparsely populated rural areas or
in densely populated urban areas. They live in almost every state from coast to coast – in the vast
reaches of Alaska; the urban centers of southern California, New York, and Illinois; the sprawling
colonias bordering Mexico; the Indian reservations and counties of the Four Corners region in the
West; the underserved rural communities of West Virginia and the New England states. More than a
third of them have household incomes below the federal poverty level. In fact, if you were born in
2000 into a family living below the poverty level in the United States, you were four times as likely as
a fellow American living above the poverty level to be in a home without adequate indoor plumbing.
These people are spread across all racial and ethnic categories, but they are more prominent in the
minority groups. Among American Indians and Alaska Natives, nearly one in 20 households across
the nation lacks complete working indoor plumbing. In the state of Alaska alone, one in every 16
households lacks these facilities, and in some boroughs, such as the Bethel Census area, more than
half of all Native homes do not have adequate plumbing. Similarly, one in every three American
Indian homes in Apache and Navajo counties in Arizona goes without these services. The majority
of these homes are rural.
Among Hispanics, the people most affected live in the traditional centers of large Hispanic
populations – Los Angeles in California; Miami-Dade in Florida; Harris and Hidalgo counties in
Texas; Bronx, Kings, and New York counties in New York – and in the rural areas of New England,
the South, and the West, where groups of Hispanics, including immigrants in the past decade, work
as agricultural and farm workers.
The largest proportion of African-Americans living without adequate water services is in Montana,
where almost 4 percent of African-American households lack complete plumbing facilities. More
than 1 percent of African-Americans lacked these facilities in the southern states of Virginia, South
Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia, as well as northeast states such as Rhode Island and
Massachusetts.
3
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders also often lacked complete facilities in relatively high
proportion to their population. For instance, more than 11 percent in Vermont and 10 percent in
North Dakota reported lacking services.
A look at the state-level information shows that Alaska has the highest percentage of households
without plumbing – 6.32 percent of all its households – and Nebraska has the lowest, with only 0.36
percent of its households. More than half (53 percent) of all households lacking proper plumbing
facilities in the United States are concentrated in just one-fifth of the states – California, New York,
Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina. This is not
surprising because these states also have more than half (52 percent) of the nation’s population and
more than half (55 percent) of the people who live below the poverty level. What is surprising,
though, is that only half of these states have done better than in 1990 in reducing the numbers of
people without adequate plumbing. In the other half, the numbers of households without services
have increased.
While the rural-urban divide has lessened over the last five decades – in 1950 it was almost five to
one, with 50 percent of rural homes and 11 percent of urban homes lacking plumbing – it still
persists at two to one. And with a larger share of rural homes in poverty, rural households are more
greatly affected. Today, a poor rural home is two and a half times more likely than a poor urban
home to lack proper indoor plumbing. As the home gets more rural – that is, as the population level
decreases within the area – the chances of not having such services increase further. In five of the
states – New Mexico, Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi – half or almost half of the
homes that lack adequate indoor plumbing also are below the poverty level.
Disaggregating the picture to look at county-level information gives a clearer understanding of the
dynamics of the social and economic variables that affect basic water and sanitation services. The
counties that are persistently poor, non-metro, and rural, with a larger share of their populations
composed of minority groups, are more likely to have inadequate plumbing services than are urban
counties with a more diverse racial and ethnic mix of groups. More important, these inadequate
systems pose significant health risks for vulnerable populations. Smaller community water systems
that have limited access to the resources they need to enhance these basic services are likely also to
be in violation of health and safety standards set by national environmental authorities.
Studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found more outbreaks of
waterborne diseases in the United States in the 1999–2000 period than in the previous seven years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports also show that 8.2 percent of the 48,271 community
water systems in the United States that serve populations of less than 10,000 were in violation of
health and safety standards for drinking water quality in 2003.
Couple these statistics with an aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced or improved, and the
recent reductions in spending for programs to enhance water and sanitation services, and we see an
imposing and complex situation that will require careful attention and multifaceted solutions in the
coming years. The social and economic impacts of this situation are likely to be great, as are the
ecological effects of diminishing water supplies in vulnerable areas.
These are only some aspects of basic water and sanitation services in the United States that public
policy should be concerned about. Other important aspects involve the efficacy and efficiency of
our collection and presentation of information about these services. How we define questions about
water and sanitation services in national surveys, and how we tabulate the responses for subsequent
analysis and understanding of national realities, are crucial if the resulting reports are to be
substantive and meaningful. How we define the categories of “rural,” “urban,” and “poverty”
4
becomes even more critical when the largest sources of funds – both federal and private – for
improving the socioeconomic conditions of people who live in poverty in both urban and rural areas
rely on these definitions as they disperse funds and institute programs.
There is an intrinsic link between the quality of basic services such as water and sanitation and the
economic opportunities that follow their improvement, especially in communities that are in close
proximity to developing urban centers. While we have seen a slight shift in the population from rural
to urban in the past decade, the conditions of many rural Americans have not improved, and the
quality of their basic services is an important reason.
While the United States has made great improvements in the quality of life for many urban and rural
Americans, there is more to be achieved – even in something as simple and essential as bringing
safe, clean water and basic water and sanitation services to the entirety of the U.S. populace. The gap
has been reduced to less than 1 percent of the entire population in the past century. Now our efforts
must focus on closing the gap. This task requires developing a more complex and detailed
understanding of the social, economic, and ecological reasons why communities lack these services,
and constructing solutions that are not only acceptable and feasible, but also sustainable.
Still Living Without the Basics is intended to inform the public’s understanding of access to water and
sanitation services in the United States and to contribute to the debate on how to structure policy
decisions for improving these services, especially for those groups that have been excluded or
overlooked in the development process. We hope to build on this research in the near future,
further investigating the links between people’s access to services and the various social, economic,
and ecological outcomes that affect those people.
Stephen Gasteyer, Ph.D., Director of Community Development
Rahul T. Vaswani, M.A., Research Associate
5
Still Living Without the Basics: Analyzing the Availability of Water
and Sanitation Services in the United States
Introduction
For the vast majority of United States citizens in the 21st century, household water has become so
readily available that we barely consider it. Turn on the tap, jump in the shower, flush the toilet – we
take for granted our access to potable water and modern sanitation and assume that everyone across
the country has access to these services. Indeed, almost everyone does – more than 99 percent of
U.S. residents, according to the 2000 Census.
Most international health and socioeconomic development institutions, including the World Health
Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank (WB),
simply round up that percentage and report that 100 percent of U.S. citizens have access to
developed water and sanitation services.1 They suggest that the few Americans who lack these
amenities are extreme exceptions – exceedingly rare and subject to extraordinary circumstances,
probably temporary.2
The number of households involved may indeed seem statistically small, at 0.64 percent of all U.S.
households. But that 0.64 percent translates into 670,986 households, representing more than 1.7
million people3 who lack complete plumbing facilities (Table 1).4 This is the number of people who
are falling through the cracks. Makers of public policy – urban and rural, social and economic – need
to focus on these 1.7 million and their needs.
These numbers are indicative of larger and more severe realities that policy makers often overlook
or fail to comprehend. Beyond those people who live without access to proper plumbing services,
increasing numbers of people live in areas where the groundwater they use for household purposes
is contaminated or where the supply of water is dwindling because of water losses and overuse.
Even communities that have had piped water for some time are now confronting the reality of
having to replace or upgrade aging infrastructure and water treatment facilities that no longer
comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) health and safety regulations.5
Drawing on data from the U.S. Census surveys of 1990 and 2000 and other related sources, this
report describes some of the characteristics of the people who still live without access to basic water
and sanitation services in the United States. It tries to answer some elementary questions: What is
1 See, for example, the water and sanitation statistics available for the United States on the WHO and UNICEF websites at
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global11-2.htm or
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/en/Glassessment11.pdf – page 3, and at
http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/water/Euroam/usa_water1.pdf.
2 “Americans” in this report refers only to U.S. citizens, U.S. residents, or U.S. nationals, any of whom reside in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, and, where specified, in Puerto Rico and the Island Areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Northern Mariana Islands).
3 These statistics include information from only the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. They are tabulated from the
responses to Item 39 of the Long Form of U.S. Census 2000.
4 It is important to note that the U.S. Census definition of “lacking complete plumbing facilities” is the lack of any of the following
services within the housing unit: (a) hot and cold piped water, (b) bathtub or shower, (c) flush toilet. This definition has been more or
less consistent since 1970. We take this definition to be equivalent, for purposes of this report, to the more general understanding of
what constitutes basic water and sanitation facilities. See also the section on information gaps in this report for a better understanding
of the limitations of information on plumbing and sanitation facilities.
5 For more information, see USEPA, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, Office of Water (4606M) EPA-816-R-02-020,
2002, or www.epa.gov/safewater. Also see West Central Initiative, Infrastructure for West Central Minnesota Communities, West Central
Initiative, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, 2002, or http://www.wcif.org/publications/pdf/infra_2003/infrastructurestudy2003.pdf; accessed
May 2, 2004.
7
the number of households and people lacking these services? What regions, states, and counties are
home to these people? Do these people tend to live more in rural or urban areas? What are their
ethnicities? What is their socioeconomic status? The report also tries to address some key policy
questions that arise from this analysis: How have the numbers of people living without services
changed over time – particularly in the past decade? What has contributed to this change? What is
the relationship of water and sanitation services to other basic services? What do policy makers need
to understand more clearly about this information to make further improvements in the availability
of water and sanitation services? What efforts need to be taken in this direction?
Methodological Layout of the Study
This report provides an analysis of the access to complete plumbing facilities in the United States –
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands).6 Where possible,
the analysis looks beyond the U.S. Census levels to cover regional, state, and county place levels as
well.
The basic research for our analysis was done in two parts.
Part I of the Analysis
In the first part, we relied entirely on the information provided by the U.S. Census for 1990 and
2000, and undertook our research in four successively complex stages.
The first stage involved collecting data and arranging it for subsequent analysis. This stage included
determining how the demographic and socioeconomic data relate to each other. We did this
primarily at the state and national levels and disaggregated it across six of the eight major race and
ethnicity categories used in the Census 2000 survey. The categories included in this study are the six
races of “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian and Alaska Native” (AIAN),
“Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” (NHOPI), “Asian,” “Some Other Race,” and the
ethnic category of “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.”
In the second stage, we analyzed the data down to the county level7 for the 50 U.S. states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and to the Census-designated place (CDP) level for the
Island Areas. In the case of the four Island Areas, we made this change in geographic level, from
county to CDP, to obtain a more meaningful representation of information at a disaggregated level.
At both of these substate geographic levels, we analyzed the data for the number of households and
the number of people lacking complete plumbing facilities. Where possible, we also tracked the
breakdown of these numbers for the six race and ethnicity categories listed above. This was not
always possible, because the size of some counties is so small that the Census Bureau does not
release information about housing and population characteristics in order to maintain the
confidentiality of the respondents.
In the third stage, we determined the possible lack of adequate water and sanitation facilities for
households and people disaggregated by race and by ethnicity, in urban and rural areas, at both the
The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas are each treated as the statistical equivalent of a state for U.S. Census
purposes. However, figures quoted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the United States as a whole include numbers for the District of
Columbia but not for the other equivalent states, and this report treats those figures the same way unless otherwise stated in the text.
7 While tabulation of data below the county level was not practical for this endeavor, we fully recognize the limitations of county data,
specifically for recognizing rural/urban differential. Urban counties in the West often contain rural places.
6
8
state and the county or CDP levels. This gave a clearer picture of how the numbers were
geographically placed.
In the fourth stage, we determined the correlation between the lack of adequate water and sanitation
facilities and the level of poverty, at both the state and county or CDP levels. We also did these
correlations with similar information available for the race and ethnic categories above, and for
households in urban and rural areas.
Using ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) applications, we mapped our findings for the
states, counties, and CDP areas, showing the percentages and absolute numbers of households and
people lacking adequate water and sanitation services.
Part II of the Analysis
In the second part of our analysis, we took information from additional data sources to help us
address some of the important questions that either were based on the assumptions that led to our
analysis or arose in the process of the research itself. For this we used the following sources:
§ The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) datasets of the USEPA to find the
relationship between the number of people without access to services and the size, ownership,
and health safety violations of small community water systems.
§ Data from the Advanced Query Data Finder of the U.S. Census Bureau to find the relationship
between the lack of complete plumbing facilities and the cost of water and sanitation services in
rural and urban locations across the United States.
§ The information compiled in the first part of our research at the state and county levels, the
correlations determined above, and other available socioeconomic and demographic indicators
to develop hypotheses about certain areas that have a relatively higher number or percentage of
households reporting lack of water and sanitation services. This was necessary to understand the
underlying causes for the lack of adequate water and sanitation services in different
socioeconomic and demographic conditions.
Using the methodology described above, we were able to determine how many households or
people of any race or ethnic group do not have access to complete plumbing facilities, at the state
and county levels, in both urban and rural areas. We were also able to determine some important
correlations between the lack of complete plumbing facilities and other variables, such as these:
1. The poverty level in each of these states and counties, and likewise in each of the urban
and rural areas in each state and county.
2. The monthly cost of water and sewer facilities per household.
3. The health safety violations of codes and regulations that occur in the small community
water systems serving these households in each county.
Our analysis has helped us better understand, and at the same time has affirmed some of our preanalytical assumptions on, the relationships between economic conditions, geographic location,
conditions of infrastructure, and kinds of communities. More important, these understandings have
helped us identify some of the resources, services, and assistance underserved communities need in
the coming years to meet the gap in water and sanitation infrastructure.
9
Information Gaps
In the course of our research, we encountered some important information gaps that readers of this
report should be aware of as they try to understand the analysis.
§ Not all people answering the U.S. Census Long Form interpreted the question about plumbing
services in the same way.8 For instance, the 2000 Census revealed that more than 1,100
households, or more than 3,200 people, in Fairfax County, Virginia (a relatively affluent suburb
of Washington, D.C.), lacked complete plumbing services. This finding raises the possibility that
some responses were not what the Census question intended to elicit. Some respondents, for
instance, may have noted that they lacked complete plumbing services when those services were
in fact available to them but had been turned off for lack of payment – presumably a temporary
condition, not a permanent one. While we view this issue as critically related to our concerns, it
is beyond the scope of this report. It is worth noting here, though, that other organizations have
increasingly focused on how the inability to pay affects people’s access to water services,
whether temporarily (as when water is cut off for nonpayment) or permanently.9
§ It is possible that many people who probably lack access to basic services were not included
in the Census. Among these people may be the homeless in the United States, as well as
immigrants or migrant laborers who might have worried about responding to the Census data
collectors out of fear that the information would be turned over to law enforcement or
immigration authorities. While the Census Bureau maintains confidentiality of the data it
collects, the fact that the bureau is part of the U.S. government can make it suspect in the eyes
of many people in such categories.
§ Several key questions about plumbing and sanitation facilities were eliminated from the U.S.
Census questionnaires between 1990 and 2000. These included data about the source of water,
the type of water and wastewater facilities, and water system ownership. In the U.S. 2000
Census, they exist only in the questionnaires distributed in the Island Areas. If they had been
included in all of the questionnaires, these questions would have allowed for a more detailed
analysis of not only the numbers of people lacking plumbing and sanitation services but also the
population living with inadequate water services.10
§ Because of confidentiality considerations in small counties and inconsistencies between the data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau and data from the State Drinking Water Information
System, wherever possible we concentrated our correlations on the counties whose information
appeared in both databases. The same is true for correlations between U.S. Census information
and the data taken from the query results of Advanced Factfinder. For example, the correlation
between the lack of plumbing facilities and the monthly cost of water and sewer facilities was
possible for only 2,336 of the total 3,219 U.S. counties.11
§ The definition of "urban" and "rural" changed between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census surveys.
Thus, the information for these categories is not directly comparable between the two surveys.12
Nonetheless, we have shown the comparative data from the two years in our ranking tables to
give readers a general idea of the magnitude of changes in "urban" and "rural" numbers between
the two censuses.
See the glossary at the end of this report for a description of the Long Form.
See the work of Public Citizen and the Welfare Rights Association on water cutoffs in Detroit, Michigan
(www.citizen.org/facts/detroit), and the report of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council on water system affordability
(www.epa.gov/safewater/ndwac/affordability).
10 The distinction here is among drinking water, water for other household purposes, and sanitation/sewer facilities.
11 The total number of counties (municipios, in the case of Puerto Rico) for the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico is 3,219.
12 For a more detailed description of “urban” and “rural,” see the glossary at the end of this report.
8
9
10
Report Findings and Discussions
In this report we cover the following related issues:
§ Households and populations without access to basic water and sanitation services, mapped by
each state and down to the county level where possible.
§ The breakdown of the population living without these services by race/ethnicity – specifically
for the six race/ethnicity categories included in this report – at the state and county levels.
§ An analysis of rural-urban differences and similarities related to lack of these services.
§ Public health implications of not having access to basic water and sanitation services.
§ Factors that influence access to water and sanitation in the United States.
§ Steps that are being taken to address these issues.
§ Key issues for rural water infrastructure.
§ Key program and policy concerns related to these issues.
We provide county-level information tables and GIS maps representing the numbers of households
in each county that lack access to complete plumbing services. We have used information from the
U.S. Census to document these numbers. We have correlated this information with data from
SDWIS and discussed some of our findings, where applicable. While we clearly have not exhausted
the data available on water and sanitation, we hope this report will contribute to an understanding of
the work still to be done in the United States on this issue.
How Many People in the United States Live Without Basic Water and
Sanitation Services?
The United States has made great progress over the past 50 years in providing its residents with
access to improved water and sewer facilities. In 1950, 27 percent of all households in the country
lacked access to complete plumbing facilities. The rural-urban divide then was more substantial –
close to a five-to-one ratio. More than 50 percent of rural households and 11 percent of urban
households lacked these services in 1950. Significant rural infrastructure investments by the federal
and local governments through the 1950s and 1960s led to a dramatic decrease in the households
without proper plumbing facilities. By 1970, only 5.9 percent of all U.S. households lacked piped
water, although the ratio of rural to urban still remained close to five to one (14.5 percent of rural
and 3.1 percent of urban households lacked proper plumbing facilities in 1970).
Table 1: Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, 1950–200013
% of occupied housing units lacking
plumbing (U.S.)
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Rural
14
Rural – farm
Urban
Total
56
55
11
27
31.5
NA
8.2
14.7
14.5
NA
3.1
5.9
4.5
3.9
2.2
2.7
1.9
NA
0.5
0.78
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.64
13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing 1950, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1952; Census of Housing
1960 (1962); Census of Housing 1970 (1972); Census of Housing 1980 (1982); Census of Housing 1990 (1992); Census of Housing
2000 (2002). Also see Dennis Warner and Jaris S. Dajani, Water and Sewer Development in Rural America: A Study of Community Impacts,
Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1975.
14 The “Rural”category includes all non-farm and farm households. The “Rural – farm” category includes all households located in a
rural farm area and concerned with growing crops or raising livestock.
11
By 1990, the United States had installed basic plumbing infrastructure for more than 99 percent of
its citizens. Most of the people who lacked plumbing services were elderly, poor, and living in rural
areas.15 Rural households were still four times as likely as urban households to lack proper plumbing.
By the 2000 Census, only 0.64 percent of occupied households lacked complete plumbing facilities
(Table 2). Indeed, the percentage was low enough in 2000 that UNICEF stated in its global reports
on access to water and sanitation services that the United States had 100 percent water and
sanitation coverage. While the 0.64 percent may appear to be statistically insignificant, it represents
more than 1.7 million people across the country, most of whom are the hidden poor – people who
live in rural, and often underserved or marginalized, areas that lack the services that most Americans
take for granted. The rural-urban divide is still at two to one – a rural household is twice as likely as
an urban one to have inadequate plumbing facilities in the United States (Table 2).16 U.S. Census
2000 figures suggest that more than 1.1 million urban citizens (equal to 0.5 percent of the total
urban population) and more than 600,000 rural citizens (equal to 1.04 percent of the total rural
population) still lack proper plumbing facilities.
Table 2. Total and Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities,
1990–2000
Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
Census
Total –
Percentage –
Total – Percentage –
Year
Total
Percentage
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
2000
1990
670,986
721,693
0.64
0.78
226,967
405,855
1.03
1.85
444,019
315,838
0.53
0.45
Who Are the People Living Without Basic Water and Sanitation Services?
The people who lack these basic services live in some of the most productive farmland in the United
States, along the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, on Indian reservations, and in the states of
the South and the Southeast. They are people working and living in rural and urban areas with
dilapidated or nonexistent infrastructure. The Census 2000 data show that 0.64 percent of all
occupied households in the country lack adequate plumbing (see Maps 1 and 2). This translates to
670,986 households in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or more than 1.7 million people.
When the numbers for Puerto Rico are included, the total households lacking plumbing increase to
736,626, and the number of people lacking these services increases to more than 1.95 million.17 In
addition, 11,033 households and an estimated population of 47,800 in the Island Areas lack complete plumbing facilities; this calculation brings the total figure close to 2 million U.S. residents.18
15 See Still Living Without the Basics: A Report on the Lack of Complete Plumbing That Still Exists in Rural America, Rural Community
Assistance Program, Washington, D.C., 1995.
16 It is important to note that the U.S. Census 2000 survey does not have a precise definition of what constitutes “rural” areas. Rather,
it goes about defining urban areas, accounting for core areas, urbanized areas, and urban clusters differentiated by population density,
proximity to metropolitan centers, and so on. What is left is given the status of “rural.” The 1990 Census found 62 million people
living in rural parts of the country. The number dropped by about 5 percent in the 2000 Census, although the total U.S. population
increased by about 13 percent. It is likely that at least some of this decrease results from the change in the definition of what
constitutes “rural” between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, rather than from socioeconomic changes in that decade.
17 This figure of more than 1.95 million is obtained from the Advanced Query Data Finder of the Census Bureau and corroborates to
the population estimates obtained from the Summary File 3 of the U.S. Census 2000 survey.
18 The U.S. Census information does not include the numbers for Puerto Rico or the Island Areas in its tabulations of the total
households and people lacking complete plumbing facilities.
12
Rural – Urban Divide
When we break down the numbers and percentages of households lacking proper water and
sanitation services among rural areas, rural places with populations of less than 1,000 and rural farm
populations have the highest percentage of homes lacking services, well above the national average
of 0.64 percent. In the case of urban areas, the highest percentage of households lacking these
services is in the most densely populated urbanized areas (those with populations of 5 million or
more) and in the fringe areas of urban clusters that are adjacent to rural areas and have populations
ranging from 2,500 to 4,999. The relative difference in lack of services between urban and rural areas
ranges from about 1.5 to 3 times, depending on the population level of the area (Table 3).
Table 3. Households and Population in Rural and Urban Areas Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities, 2000
Occupied Housing Units Lacking Plumbing Facilities
Geography
Percentage of Total
Estimated Population
Total
Households
Lacking Plumbing19
United States as a whole
Rural
Rural – total in a place
Rural – in a place of 2,500 or
more people
Rural – in a place of 1,000 to
2,500 people
Rural – in a place of fewer than
1,000 people
Rural – not in a place
Rural – farm
670,986
226,967
41,704
0.64
1.03
0.84
1,737,814
599,193
105,511
9,156
0.61
23,897
13,288
0.68
33,087
19,260
1.27
48,150
185,263
13,172
1.09
1.19
496,505
35,564
Urban
Urban – in an urbanized area
Urban – in an urbanized area of
5,000,000 or more
2,500,000 to 4,999,999
1,000,000 to 2,499,999
500,000 to 999,999
250,000 to 499,999
100,000 to 249,999
50,000 to 99,999
Urban – in an urban cluster
Urban – in an urban cluster of
25,000 to 49,999
5,000 to 9,999
2,500 to 4,999
444,019
389,261
0.53
0.54
1,145,569
1,012,079
121,651
0.80
335,757
85,380
0.58
223,696
56,563
0.43
143,670
43,161
0.48
109,629
29,399
0.42
74,379
32,175
0.41
81,081
20,932
0.41
52,121
54,758
0.48
136,347
14,045
0.43
34,832
12,162
0.51
30,405
9,540
0.54
23,659
19 The estimated population is calculated by multiplying the number of households lacking plumbing facilities by the average
household size for that category (as given in Summary File 3 of the U.S. Census 2000 survey).
13
14
15
Table 3 shows that rural areas generally have a higher percentage of the population lacking
plumbing. Within rural households, the proportion of those lacking plumbing is highest in
communities of fewer than 1,000 residents and among farm households. For urbanized areas or
urban clusters, the trend is different. Within urban areas, the most densely populated areas (those of
5 million or more) have the highest percentage lacking services – 0.80 percent. The percentage drops
steadily as the population size of the urban area decreases, reaching 0.41 percent of households
lacking proper plumbing in urban areas of only 50,000 to 99,999 people. In the smaller, urban
cluster category, the percentage rises as the population decreases – from 0.43 percent in larger
clusters of 25,000 to 49,999 people, to 0.54 percent in the smallest urban clusters of 2,500 to 4,999
people.
Rural areas have traditionally been the most difficult to reach with water services, because they lack
the economies of scale to support such services without subsidization or they lack the technical
assistance and financing. A total of 226,967 rural households lack adequate plumbing, which
includes 13,172 rural farm households.20 Despite the rise in American economic and living standards
with the boom in agricultural capacity, it is clear that rural-farm households remain some of the
most deprived in the nation in terms of basic services. The relatively high percentage of those
lacking services in the highly urbanized areas is presumably the result of two factors: low-income
populations living in substandard housing and people reporting water cutoffs as lacking plumbing
facilities. In either case, more research may be needed to identify the reasons for this statistic.
Analysis by Race and Ethnicity
The figures for the percentage of households and the total population lacking complete plumbing
facilities vary greatly by race and ethnicity. Among race categories, American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AIANs) have the greatest percentage of households nationwide lacking complete plumbing
facilities, at 4.41 percent or 33,781 of their households (Tables 4 and 5, Maps 3 and 4), and Whites
have the lowest, at 0.47 of their households. Alaska has the highest percentage of households
without services – 6.32 percent – with the proportion in rural areas more than 18 percent. More
than half of all rural AIAN communities in the Bethel, Nome, Wade Hampton, and YukonKoyukuk census areas, for example, do not have services. More than a third (38.79 percent) of all
rural AIAN communities across Alaska live in similar conditions. This is in part because of the
isolation of much of Alaska from modern infrastructure and the resulting cost of installing water
services, which most Alaska Native communities are unwilling or unable to bear. It is also a result
of the geology of Alaska, because the severe cold makes drilling and maintaining water lines difficult.
While many Alaska Natives have said that they would prefer living without services to dealing with
the problems of piped water, there are increasing efforts to improve sanitation services. This
situation is described this way:
Many rural Alaskans live without running water and flush toilets. The basic sanitation needs
in nearly one-half of Alaska’s 192 Native villages have yet to be met. Another 76 rural
communities are not considered to be Native villages; however, the Federal Field Work
Group on Alaska Rural Water and Wastewater Sanitation Issues reported in 1995 "sanitation
facilities in a number of these communities are known to be similar to those of Alaska
Native villages." The work group, which was commissioned by Congress, reviewed the
social-economic factors contributing to sanitation inadequacy and noted that one-fourth of
Alaska’s Native residents "live without running water and use plastic buckets for toilets." In
Of the 670,986 households lacking complete plumbing facilities in the United States, 444,019 are urban households and 226,967 are
rural households. See Tables 2 and 3 in the text.
20
16
many villages, residents must haul water to their homes. Due to the high need for housing,
many homes are constructed without adequate sanitation facilities being available to connect
homes or provide safe running water or proper sewage disposal. Communities are often
faced with having to make difficult decisions between adequate housing and adequate
sanitation..21
Table 4. Total and Percentage of Rural and Urban Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities, by Race or Ethnic Category, 2000
Race/
Ethnic
Total
%
Rural – % Rural
Total
%
Total
%
Category
Rural
Rural
Farm
– Farm
Urban
Urban
White
Black
AIAN
Asian
NHOPI
SOR
Hispanic
389,415
131,382
33,781
27,780
1,383
62,687
134,723
0.47
1.10
4.41
0.89
1.40
1.63
1.47
158,653
30,724
27,256
644
338
5,090
12,256
0.79
2.66
9.62
0.82
3.88
2.18
2.16
11,449
1,109
253
53
4
213
451
1.09
3.64
4.36
1.81
1.61
2.87
2.55
230,762
100,658
6,525
27,136
1,045
57,597
122,467
0.36
0.93
1.35
0.89
1.16
1.60
1.42
The American Indians living without complete plumbing services are most numerous in the
reservations and pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona. An investigation of the county-level
information indicates that this ethnic group is most affected in the Four Corners area of New
Mexico and Arizona – in other words, on the large Hopi, Navajo, and Apache Reservations. In
Arizona, for instance, 35 percent of American Indians in Apache County and 27 percent in Navajo
County lack adequate plumbing. Significant numbers of American Indians do not have basic services
in areas such as the Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota, which covers three counties – Bennett,
Jackson, and Shannon – where 2.49, 2.65, and 12.96 percent of households, respectively, report not
having complete plumbing facilities.
The Some Other Race (SOR) category is a catch-all category chosen by those who feel that their
race is not represented in the other six race categories. Based on an evaluation done by the U.S.
Census Bureau, more than 95 percent of those who filled in this category are of Mexican,
Panamanian, Caribbean, Central American, and/or South American origin.22
Rural Alaska Sanitation Coalition, Mission and Goals, Alaska Native Health Board, http://www.anhb.org/sub/rasc/, accessed May 2,
2004.
22 Census Bureau, “Results of 2003 National Census Test of Race and Hispanic Questions of 2003,” Suitland, Maryland, U.S. Census
Bureau, Department of Commerce, 2004.
21
17
18
19
Hispanics (including Puerto Ricans) are the next largest group, at 1.47 percent (or 134,723
households) (Maps 5 and 6). More than 64,000 of these households are located in Puerto Rico.
Another 36,505 are in California, and 28,157 are in Texas. The largest numbers of people living
without services are in the urban, coastal, southern California counties of Los Angeles and San
Diego. The counties with the highest proportions of people living without services, though, are in
California’s Central Valley, a lucrative agricultural area with many farm workers from Central and
South America. These workers often struggle for a meager living, and large numbers of them remain
persistently poor and without access to basic services. The Texas population is from the colonias
along the Mexican border, where the lack of water and sanitation stems from a combination of land
tenure problems, poverty, and unresolved immigration status. The USEPA has described the
situation as follows:
There are more than 1,300 “colonias” in Texas and New Mexico along the border with an
estimated population of more than 300,000. A few colonias may exist in Arizona and some
possibly in California. However, most colonias are concentrated in the Las Cruces, New
Mexico, El Paso, Texas, and the lower Rio Grande Valley area, and west surrounding
Brownsville, Texas. Colonias developed in the border area (especially in Texas) as land
developers sold small plots of land in unincorporated subdivisions to low-income families.
These land purchases are generally financed with a low down payment and low monthly
payments. A deed of ownership is rarely transferred. At the time this activity took place,
State law only required road access and drainage. Providing solutions to public health
problems in the colonias is a unique situation in that they are not political subdivisions.
Financial programs are normally designed to deal with an identified political entity. The
typical colonia does not have any basic community infrastructure such as safe drinking water,
sewage disposal, or garbage collection and disposal.23
In absolute numbers of people lacking complete plumbing facilities in the country as a whole, the
White race category has the highest numbers, with more than 950,000 people, followed by Hispanics
at more than 475,000 people and Black or African Americans at more than 350,000 people. On
analyzing these numbers more closely at the county level, we find that for the race/ethnic categories
of White, Black or African Americans, Asian, and Hispanic, more than 96 percent of all households
lacking plumbing in the top 10 counties for each race category in the nation are urban households.
This is starkly different for the race category of AIAN. More than 96 percent of all AIANs lacking
plumbing facilities in the top 10 counties are rural. For the NHOPI category, two-thirds of the
homes in the top 10 counties are urban, and the rest are rural.24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Mexico Border: Colonias Fact Sheet, USEPA, Washington, D.C., 2003,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/mexican/clnfcts.pdf, accessed May 2, 2004.
24 It is important to note that the numbers for households lacking complete plumbing facilities in the top 10 counties in each
race/ethnicity category represent a substantial percentage of the total households lacking services for each of these race/ethnicity
categories. For example, the top 10 counties for AIAN, NHOPI and Asian race categories have 60 percent, 50 percent, and 45
percent, respectively, of the total households lacking plumbing in these categories all over the nation.
23
20
21
22
Table 5. Top Five States With Highest Percentage of Households Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities, for Six Race and Ethnic Categories, 200025
Race/
Ethnic
1
2
3
4
5
Category State
%
State
%
State
%
State
%
State
%
White
Black
AIAN
Asian
NHOPI
SOR
Hispanic
AK
MT
AK
ND
VT
MA
MA
4.28
3.99
22.98
2.19
11.11
3.61
3.39
HI
MS
AZ
SD
ND
AK
AK
1.10
1.73
17.02
2.01
10.81
3.46
2.45
WV
RI
NM
MN
CT
ME
NY
1.00
1.64
14.18
1.96
9.12
3.09
2.18
KY
VA
UT
RI
ME
DC
CT
0.94
1.53
9.89
1.75
6.82
3.04
2.17
ME
MA
DC
NH
LA
CT
RI
0.84
1.50
6.08
1.64
4.93
2.61
1.92
The percentages for each of the race/ethnic groups lacking services vary widely geographically. A
critical commonality for all minority race/ethnicity groups except AIAN is that the states where they
have the highest percentage without water services is where they have a smaller population (Table 5).
The highest percentage of Hispanic households with inadequate plumbing is located in the
urbanized northeastern states and Alaska, where the population of Hispanics is relatively low. The
majority of AIAN households lacking plumbing are located in Alaska, as discussed above, and in the
predominantly Indian and rural, underserved counties of the west in Arizona, New Mexico, and
Utah. The highest percentage of Blacks without services is in Montana, which has a very low Black
population. More than 1.5 percent of Blacks in Rhode Island, which also has a small Black
population, reported lacking water services. The percentages of Blacks without services were also
high in the persistently poor, predominantly African American counties of Mississippi and Virginia.
The case of Bayview, Virginia, in Northampton County, is illustrative.
On a sun-kissed afternoon, Victoria Cummings fetches her 5-year-old daughter, Kadijah,
from the Head Start bus stop up on the asphalt road….Once home, Kadijah exerts her tiny
biceps by pumping a dishpan full of off-color rust-flavored water from the outdoor hand
pump that her mother will use for her "bath." Cummings plans a trip to the store to buy
bottled water for drinking and cooking with her food stamps. Her 12-year-old, Latoya, gets
home about 3:30 p.m., and Cummings leaves shortly after that for her night-shift job cutting
fat off plucked chickens.…The small settlement of Bayview sits on a peninsula across the
Chesapeake Bay from the rest of Virginia. One in a string of Eastern Shore communities
settled by freed slaves, it slowly has sunk into abject poverty in a state where much of the
economy hums with the promise of the next century. Bayview’s 114 residents are among the
most impoverished in what, by some measures, is Virginia’s poorest county….Cummings’s
dream is simple: "Water – running water – inside the house," she says.26
It is notable that through community initiative and collaboration with multiple government and
nongovernment organizations, Bayview is installing new housing and water facilities. Over time,
collective action has improved the situation.27
When we look at the states where minority groups are concentrated in large numbers, though, we
find that they constitute a predominantly large share of the people in the state who lack complete
plumbing facilities. For example, in Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and
25 Puerto Rico has some of the highest rates of households lacking complete plumbing facilities, for all race and ethnic categories
(White 4.88%; Black 6.76%; AIAN 9.29%; Asian 5.84%; NHOPI 16.24%; Hispanic 5.22%), but it is not listed in the table, in keeping
with the convention used in this report, as explained earlier.
26 Sylvia Moreno, “In the Spotlight, A Community's Poverty,” Washington Post, May 10, 1998, page A1.
27Anne Raver, “Town of Worn Bootstraps Lifts Itself Up,” New York Times, August 21, 2003, Section F, page 1.
23
Alabama, where Blacks constitute more than 25 percent of each state’s total population, more than
half of all people who lack plumbing in each of these states are Blacks (Table 6). This is similar for
AIAN and Hispanic race/ethnicity categories (Tables 7 and 8). The AIAN populations in Alaska,
New Mexico, and Arizona comprise from about 5 percent (in Arizona) to just over 15 percent (in
Alaska) of the state population, but well over half of all people lacking plumbing in each of these
states are from the AIAN race group.
Table 6. Percentage of Black or African American Population Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities, Top 10 Ranked States, 2000 28
Black or African American Race Only
Overall Population
Population Lacking
(all counted races)
Population
Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Percentage
Difference
State
of Total
Between
Percentage of
Total
State
(1) and (2)
Total State
Total
Lacking
Total
Total Population
Population
Plumbing
Lacking
(1)
Plumbing
(2)
DC
MS
LA
SC
GA
MD
AL
NC
VA
DE
28
536,373
2,749,237
4,332,884
3,876,875
7,952,484
5,162,381
4,332,570
7,795,305
6,846,703
758,963
5,508
23,800
27,289
22,092
45,094
23,421
24,962
45,335
45,332
2,530
326,611
990,315
1,378,421
1,130,688
2,244,187
1,416,133
1,104,937
1,653,612
1,306,377
140,774
60.89
36.02
31.81
29.16
28.22
27.43
25.50
21.21
19.08
18.55
3,603
16,746
16,979
13,154
23,455
10,730
13,416
20,724
18,205
1,069
65.41
70.36
62.22
59.54
52.01
45.81
53.75
45.71
40.16
42.25
–4.52
–34.34
–30.41
–30.38
–23.79
–18.38
–28.24
–24.50
–21.08
–23.70
Source: Advanced Query Data Finder of the U.S. Census Bureau, http://advancedquery.census.gov, accessed June 4, 2004.
24
Table 7. Percentage of AIAN Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, Top 10 Ranked
States, 2000 29
AIAN Race Only
Overall Population
Population Lacking
(all counted races)
Population
Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Percentage
Difference
State
Percentage
of Total
Between (1)
Total
of Total
State
and (2)
Total
Lacking
Total
State
Total Population
Plumbing
Population
Lacking
(1)
Plumbing
(2)
AK
NM
SD
OK
MT
AZ
ND
WY
WA
ID
607,641
1,782,718
726,335
3,338,046
877,381
5,020,851
618,494
479,676
5,757,636
1,262,397
38,561
33,841
4,288
16,890
5,359
64,238
2,024
2,085
28,272
6,442
93,355
168,670
58,550
259,950
53,031
246,667
30,253
11,021
88,174
16,897
15.36
9.46
8.06
7.79
6.04
4.91
4.89
2.30
1.53
1.34
22,842
21,239
1,904
2,108
528
37,218
235
223
882
302
59.24
62.76
44.40
12.48
9.85
57.94
11.61
10.70
3.12
4.69
–43.87
–53.30
–36.34
–4.69
–3.81
–53.02
–6.72
–8.40
–1.59
–3.35
Table 8. Percentage of Hispanic Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, Top 10 Ranked
States, 2000 30
Hispanic Ethnicity Only
Overall Population
Population Lacking
(all counted races)
Population
Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Percentage
Difference
State
Percentage
of Total
Between
Total
of Total
State
(1) and (2)
Total
Lacking
Total
State
Total
Population
Plumbing
Population)
Lacking
(1)
Plumbing
(2)
NM
CA
TX
AZ
NV
CO
FL
NY
NJ
IL
29
30
1,782,718
33,052,189
20,290,302
5,020,851
1,964,572
4,198,094
15,593,328
18,395,693
8,219,436
12,096,973
33,841
273,629
167,633
64,238
9,498
17,574
80,332
155,482
45,090
68,220
752,793
10,782,193
6,547,417
1,270,930
389,461
718,590
2,630,311
2,792,797
1,096,410
1,511,718
42.23
32.62
32.27
25.31
19.82
17.12
16.87
15.18
13.34
12.50
7,985
156,731
106,761
14,736
3,842
6,076
29,389
59,162
17,629
23,697
23.60
57.28
63.69
22.94
40.45
34.57
36.58
38.05
39.10
34.74
18.63
–24.66
–31.42
2.37
–20.63
–17.46
–19.72
–22.87
–25.76
–22.24
Ibid.
Ibid.
25
In Which States Are Basic Water Services Most Lacking?
State-Level Analysis
Fourteen states, including New York, California, Texas, and Virginia, have figures above the national
average of 0.64 percent of total occupied households lacking adequate plumbing. Alaska has the
highest: 6.32 percent, or 14,003 households, lacking complete plumbing facilities. Nebraska has the
lowest: 0.36 percent, or 2,408 households. Calculations for numbers of people show that California
has the largest number, with more than 240,000 people (or 85,460 occupied households) lacking
complete plumbing. Wyoming has the least, with about 2,500 people (or 1,011 occupied
households). The top 10 states with the highest numbers for households with inadequate plumbing
(Table 9) hold more than half of such households in the United States. Within these states, the
AIAN population has the highest level of inadequate plumbing – an average of 3.21 percent of
AIAN households. Of these 10 states, 5 have had an average 25 percent increase in households
lacking plumbing facilities, and the other 5 have had an average 24 percent decrease. These 10 states
had an average overall increase of 16 percent in the number of total households lacking complete
plumbing services from 1990 to 2000. There are myriad reasons why the percentages decreased in
some states and increased in others. These include different levels of investment in water and
sanitation infrastructure and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, in-migration of low-wage
laborers, and existing employment and infrastructure base.
Table 9. Total and Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities,
in Top 10 States Ranked for 2000
Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Percentage
Change
Percentage
U.S./State
From
1990 to
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
Change from
2000 in Total
(2000)
(2000)
(1990)
(1990)
1990 to 2000
Households
United States
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Arizona
Virginia
Ohio
North Carolina
670,986
85,460
58,418
54,853
30,134
24,450
23,959
21,088
19,550
19,407
19,295
0.64
0.74
0.83
0.74
0.48
0.51
0.52
1.11
0.72
0.44
0.62
721,693
57,974
50,428
56,844
22,061
26,355
21,572
18,352
35,788
24,394
33,192
0.78
0.56
0.76
0.94
0.43
0.59
0.51
1.34
1.56
0.60
1.32
–7.03
47.41
15.84
–3.5
36.59
–7.23
11.07
14.91
–45.37
–20.44
–41.87
14.72
10.8
6.29
21.78
23.43
6.25
9.27
38.9
17.77
8.76
24.43
County-Level Analysis
As we took a closer look at the counties within the states (Map 7), we found several areas lacking in
plumbing services that were not possible to identify at the state level. In terms of percentage of
households lacking plumbing, the highest numbers showed up in the colonias along the Texas and
New Mexico borders with Mexico; in several counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland,
Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama; along the Washington border with
Canada; in South Dakota and the predominantly Indian counties in Oklahoma; and around the Four
Corners region in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Almost all of Alaskan boroughs and
census areas and the great majority of the municipios in Puerto Rico have higher percentages of
households lacking plumbing than show up in any other regions. Interestingly, 16 of the 20 counties
26
27
in the United States (including Puerto Rico here) with the highest percentages of households lacking
plumbing facilities – ranging from 10.66 percent in Alta Vega municipio in Puerto Rico to 51.87
percent in Wade Hampton census area in Alaska – are in Alaska and Puerto Rico. Of the remaining
four, three are in the Four Corners region, and one is in South Dakota.
If we look at the population figures, we see that Apache and Navajo counties in northeastern
Arizona, the colonias in southern Texas, and several highly urban counties in California, Texas, New
York, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida show some of the largest populations with
inadequate plumbing. Together, the top 20 counties with the highest figures for population lacking
complete plumbing hold more than a quarter of the total estimated U.S. population lacking proper
plumbing services.
Rural-Urban Analysis
The rural-urban analysis for the states shows that the states with the highest percentage of rural and
rural-farm homes lacking proper plumbing are fairly similar across both areas (Table 10), with the
exception of Pennsylvania, which has a higher percentage of its farm households with plumbing.
Alaska stands out as the state with the highest percentages across all the three areas – urban, rural,
and rural-farm. Most of the affected urban areas are in densely populated cities on the coasts or
rivers in the South, Southwest, Northeast, and Hawaii.
Table 10. Percentage of Rural, Rural-Farm, and Urban Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities, in Top 10 States, Ranked for 2000
Rank
Rural
Rural-Farm
Urban
State
%
State
%
State
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Alaska
Arizona
New Mexico
Hawaii
Kentucky
Virginia
West Virginia
Utah
Maine
Montana
16.89
6.20
5.73
4.55
1.71
1.66
1.55
1.43
1.26
1.18
Alaska
Hawaii
Arizona
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
New Mexico
Maine
Virginia
Wisconsin
Kentucky
11.63
7.32
3.64
2.75
2.51
2.38
2.38
2.09
1.89
1.85
Alaska
New York
District of Columbia
California
Texas
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Hawaii
Mississippi
Rhode Island
1.04
0.86
0.85
0.73
0.65
0.64
0.60
0.60
0.56
0.56
Rural households in the United States total 226,967, and more than 600,000 people live in homes
that lack adequate plumbing. Another 6,868 rural households, or more than 23,000 people, in Puerto
Rico and the Island Areas live in similar or worse conditions. The 10 states with the highest
populations lacking plumbing in rural-farm and urban areas are shown in Table 11.
28
Table 11. Estimated Rural, Rural-Farm, and Urban Population Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities, in Top 10 States, Ranked for 2000
Estimated Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
Rank
Rural
Urban
Rural-Farm
State
Pop.
State
Pop.
State
Pop.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Texas
Arizona
Alaska
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Ohio
41,411
36,529
35,392
30,926
30,230
27,044
25,648
21,416
21,213
20,079
Wisconsin
Ohio
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Texas
Indiana
Minnesota
Virginia
Iowa
2,588
2,442
2,383
2,349
2,031
1,840
1,805
1,362
1,331
1,315
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Illinois
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Michigan
Ohio
226,584
137,966
109,131
66,143
56,243
42,832
39,701
36,048
30,973
29,166
In the top 10 rural states shown in Table 11, plumbing is lacking in 1.5 percent of the rural
households. This number is almost 1.5 times the national rural average and 3 times the national
urban average. In the case of rural-farm populations in the top 10 states shown in Table 11, a ruralfarm resident is almost three times as likely as an average urban American to lack complete
plumbing facilities.
In general, rural residents are 2 times and rural-farm residents are 2.5 times more likely to lack
plumbing than their urban counterparts.
Ethnic Distribution
In terms of ethnic distribution, Whites have higher percentages of households without adequate
plumbing in the socioeconomically marginalized areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Alaska,
and Maine (Maps 8 and 9), and Blacks have higher percentages in Virginia, New York, Louisiana,
Alabama, North and South Carolina, Oregon and Montana (Maps 10 and 11). Hispanic households
that are affected have higher percentages in most of the New England states and in the states with
larger Latino or Spanish-speaking populations – California, Texas, and New Mexico. The most
affected AIAN communities are concentrated in the Four Corners region and in Alaska.
29
30
31
32
33
Why Are Water and Sanitation Services Important?
Several studies have documented the critical importance of water and sanitation systems. A 1996
study by the University of Texas System’s Texas-Mexico Border Health Coordination Office found
that diseases such as hepatitis A, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and tuberculosis occurred at a much
higher rate in the colonias than in the rest of the state.31 The rate of reported hepatitis A, for
example, was more than double the statewide rate. Other health problems included high rates of
gastroenteritis and problems related to water quality. Medical services are rarely available, which
compounds health problems in the colonias. For children, these problems result in slower growth
and lower educational development rates.
Improved availability of water and sanitation has been among the greatest contributors to improved
public health in industrialized countries. The eradication of the diseases mentioned above came
about because of the implementation of basic sanitation and piped water systems in urban and rural
areas. When these services are lacking, public health suffers, and with it economic growth, because ill
people are inefficient students, workers, and contributors to society. It is for this reason that
industrialized nations spent billions of dollars on water and sanitation during the development
initiatives of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Still, as is evidenced in this report, there are groups of
people who have not received the benefits of these initiatives. Clearly, one of the key steps to
eliminating persistent poverty in these areas will be improved water services. Figure 1 demonstrates
the impacts that investments in water and sanitation infrastructure can have on health.32 Those
nations with a higher percentage of the population served by safe drinking water have fewer deaths
of children under the age of five. Egypt, Pakistan, and Sudan were significant outliers in the trends.
Their situation might be explained by their substantial problems of political violence and chronic
problems with developing effective mother-child health campaigns during the 1990s.
Figure 1: Relationship Between Access to Safe Drinking Water and Child Mortality
Access to safe drinking water saves lives
Cited in Border Environment Research Reports (July 1996), Improving the Quality of Drinking Water in Colonias in the Ciudad Juárez–El
Paso Area, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State University, San Diego, California,
http://www.scerp.org/scerp/docs/berr3.html.
32 UNICEF, State of the World’s Children 2000, United Nations, UNICEF, New York, New York, http://www.unicef.org, accessed May
2, 2004.
31
34
Typhoid, cholera, hepatitis A, and various other gastrointestinal maladies associated with waterborne
disease were common in U.S. cities and rural areas through the early 1900s. As municipalities seized
control of urban water systems, public health steadily improved in these areas through the first part
of the 20th century.33 It improved in rural areas with a steady increase in water and sanitation
infrastructure investment, starting in the 1930s, accelerating in the 1950s, and further increasing
substantially in the 1960s and 1970s, when government invested in basic services as part of President
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives.34 Since 1970, the number of people living without access
to basic services and the number of waterborne disease outbreaks in rural America have steadily
declined, as investments in both infrastructure and technical assistance to help rural areas develop
water infrastructure have combined with the development of national regulations to protect
groundwater and drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1973. This act was
strengthened in 1986 and amended in 1996 to provide both an ongoing process for assessing risk to
drinking water systems and processes for stakeholders to assess the feasibility of implementing new
safety rules.
It is important to recognize a major concern for those working to provide water and sanitation
infrastructure: While water infrastructure may be in place in many parts of the country, people may not be drinking
safe water. In 1999–2000, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 39
outbreaks of waterborne disease in 23 states, affecting 2,098 people. This was the highest number of
reported outbreaks since 1991–1992. The number of cases, however, should be distinguished from
their seriousness. While there were only 32 outbreaks of waterborne disease in 1993–1994 (Figure 2),
more than 400,000 people in Milwaukee, for instance, were affected by Cryptosporidiosis, the diarrheal
disease caused by a microscopic parasite Cryptosporidium parvum.35
Figure 2: Number of Reported Drinking Water Outbreaks, 1991–2000
Number of Drinking Water Outbreaks, 1991–2000
1991–92
1993–94
1995–96
Time Period
1997–98
1999–00
33 National Academy of Sciences Committee on Privatization Services, Privatization of Water Services in the United States: An Assessment of
Issues and Experience, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
34 Dennis Warner and Jaris S. Dajani, Water and Sewer Development in Rural America: A Study of Community Impacts, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 1975.
35 Sherline H. Lee, Deborah Levy, Gunther Craun, Michael Beach, and Rebecca Calderon, Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks—
United States, 1999–2000, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (SS08), Surveillance
Summaries, Atlanta, November 22, 2002, pages 1–28, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5108a1.htm, accessed May
4, 2004.
35
In addition, USEPA reports that 91 percent of the total U.S. population is drinking water that meets
established health and safety standards for maximum contaminant levels. This percentage varies for
USEPA regions. It is 62 percent in the northeastern states (EPA Region 1: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont); 76 percent in the Mid-Atlantic states and
territories (EPA Region 2: New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands); 83 percent for EPA
Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington); and over 90 percent for all other regions. U.S.
Geological Survey samples of drinking water from 12 water supply systems from 1999 to 2001
found atrazine and simazine in 85 percent of all raw and finished water samples and triazineherbicide degradation in 60 percent of raw and finished water samples.36 Volatile organic
compounds such as methyl teri-butyl ether have been found in 9 percent of community water
systems (at higher concentrations in systems serving urban rather than rural areas).37 All these
compounds have impacts on human health if continuously ingested in large enough quantities over
time.
While drinking water is relatively safe in the United States, the number of threats to its quality is
never-ending. Increasingly, one hears stories of communities once dependent on private wells that
have had to move to a centralized supply because of pollution of well supplies or diminishing
supplies caused by development or other pressures. The number is even greater for community
wastewater issues. In response to the 2000 Census, the residents in these communities are likely to
have answered that they had complete plumbing facilities. In considering the challenge of serving
those who still do not have access to basic services, it will be important to remember those
communities that may have to be transformed from having individual wells to community water
and wastewater systems in order to protect public health and the environment. The cost to the
communities is likely to be just as great, if not greater. And in many of these communities, income
levels are not likely to be high enough to support the investment in infrastructure without assistance.
Factors Affecting People Living Without Basic Services
So how, in the richest nation on earth, do whole populations find themselves still living without
plumbing facilities?
Socioeconomic Conditions
For some populations that lack service, such as Alaska Natives, it is difficult to install and maintain
water infrastructure because of distance and climatic conditions. Sociocultural and economic factors
also are critical. Some Alaska Native villages, suffering from high unemployment and poverty, are
reluctant to put in conventional water and sanitation systems because the cost of installing and
maintaining systems in that environment would be unacceptably high. These factors explain, in part,
Alaska’s ranking as the state with the highest percentage of its population living with inadequate
access to complete plumbing services. But a range of other issues at the local level also come into
play, related to social organization and leadership, availability of technical expertise, and lack of
access to funding to support water infrastructure development. These same conditions affect access
to complete plumbing facilities in other parts of the United States where households still lack access
to water and sanitation.
36 U.S. Geological Survey, Pesticides in Selected Water Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 2001,
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/whatsnew.html, accessed December 10, 2003.
37 USGS, MTBE and other Volatile Organic Compounds—New Findings and Implications on the Quality of Source Waters Used for Drinking Water
Supplies, Reston, Virginia, USGS, 2001, http://water.usgs.gov/FS/fs10501/, accessed December 10, 2003.
36
The relationship between poverty and inadequate plumbing is clear. Of the 670,986 households
without access to complete plumbing facilities in the United States, one-third, or 222,906, had an
income in 1999 that was below the federal poverty level. Roughly the same proportions applied in a
rural-urban breakdown – 30.82 percent of all urban households lacking proper plumbing were poor,
and 37.92 percent of rural homes lacking plumbing were poor (Table 12).
Table 12. Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
With Income in 1999 Below the Federal Poverty Level
% of Units With Income Below 1999
Total
Poverty Level
U.S. – Overall
U.S. – Urban
U.S. – Rural
670,986
444,019
226,967
33.22
30.82
37.92
Nationwide, 1.79 percent of all poor households lacked plumbing, as did 1.37 percent of all urban
poor households and 3.52 percent of all rural poor households. Thus, a poor rural household is
almost 2.5 times as likely as a poor urban household in the United States to lack proper plumbing.
Of all the states, Alaska had the highest proportion: 18.85 percent of all its homes that were poor
also lacked proper plumbing. Kansas had the lowest proportion, at 0.83 percent. Taking into
account only the homes that lacked plumbing facilities, New Mexico had the highest percentage that
were also poor – 50.37 percent of its homes without plumbing were also below the federal poverty
level (Table 13).
Table 13. Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities and
With Income in 1999 Below the Poverty Level, Top 10 States
State
% of Units With Income Below 1999
Total
Poverty Level
New Mexico
Arizona
West Virginia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alabama
Texas
Arkansas
South Dakota
11,905
21,088
7,451
14,947
9,015
10,717
11,005
54,853
8,327
1,858
50.37
47.60
46.84
46.58
46.00
42.10
41.98
39.89
39.59
39.56
We also found that owner-occupied households below the poverty level were statistically more likely
than renter-occupied households to lack access to complete plumbing facilities, probably because of
regulations that require landlords to provide basic facilities. Of the owner-occupied households
living in poverty, 2.02 percent, or 88,211 households, lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2000.
Of the renter-occupied households below the poverty level, 1.67 percent, or 134,695 households,
reported lacking these facilities (Table 14). While people living in poverty were almost 4 times more
likely not to have complete plumbing facilities than those living above the poverty level, in pure
numeric terms more households above the poverty level than below who lack complete water and
sanitation. In some cases, the explanation may be that these people have chosen to live in isolation.
37
Or, because of high home prices on the coasts, even people with incomes above the poverty level
may live in substandard housing.
Table 14 also shows that households above the poverty level were statistically less likely to have
incomplete plumbing facilities than households below the poverty level. Only 0.37 percent of
owner-occupied houses above the poverty level and 0.75 percent of renter-occupied houses above
the poverty level lacked complete facilities. The percentages demonstrate that income is a significant
variable in whether people have complete plumbing services. But the fact that the majority of people
living without complete water and sanitation facilities were not below the poverty level in 2000
indicates the importance of recognizing the geographic and social aspects of water services. Even
relatively wealthy people may lack certain services because they live in larger communities that lack
services.
Table 14. Plumbing Facilities by Household Type, 2000
Households
Total
Owner-occupied
Income in 1999 below poverty level
Complete plumbing facilities
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Income in 1999 at or above poverty level
Renter-occupied
Income in 1999 below poverty level
Income in 1999 at or above poverty level
Total
105,480,101
69,816,513
4,371,712
4,283,501
88,211
65,444,801
65,204,152
240,649
35,663,588
8,086,254
7,951,559
134,695
27,577,334
27,369,903
207,431
Percentage
2.02%
0.37%
1.67%
0.75%
Ruralness
A more significant finding is the relationship between ruralness and access to complete plumbing
facilities. Rural households, as has been discussed above, are more likely than urban ones to lack
access to complete plumbing facilities. Furthermore, all the counties where the percentage without
complete plumbing facilities is particularly high are non-metro—such as Star County, Texas, and
Navajo County, Arizona. As Table 1 showed, this has been the case for at least the past 50 years. By
their very nature, rural communities are hard to reach with basic services. They are also less likely to
have the human, financial, and built capital (e.g., buildings, facilities, plants) necessary for the
implementation of improved water systems. Equally important is the relationship among ruralness,
lack of proper plumbing, and level of poverty. As Table 15 shows, the more desolate (less
populated) the rural area, the more likely it is that a household that lacks proper plumbing is
also poor, by as much as 39 percent.
38
Table 15. Percentage of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
With Income Below Poverty Level in 1999
Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Rural Level
U.S. – Rural
U.S. – Rural – in a place
Rural – in a place of 2,500 or
more people
Rural – in a place of 1,000 to
2,500 people
Rural – in a place of fewer
than 1,000 people
Rural – not in a place
Total
Percentage With Income in
1999 Below Poverty Level
226,967
41,704
37.92
35.40
9,156
29.51
13,288
37.45
19,260
36.80
185,263
38.49
Nationally, rural communities are also more likely to be in violation of SDWA health and safety
regulations. The SDWIS 2003 Factoids demonstrate that smaller water systems are significantly
more likely to be in violation of health and safety standards. In keeping with that finding, this
analysis demonstrates that systems in violation of SDWA standards tend to be in counties where
more people lack complete plumbing facilities.
Cost and Quality of Water and Sanitation Services
An additional issue of concern is the quality of the water people are drinking. While we did not have
access to specific water quality data by locality for analysis in this report, USEPA databases on
drinking source water quality indicate that 10 percent of surface-based source water did not meet
USEPA clean water and safe drinking water standards.38 In addition, SDWIS indicates that 8.2
percent of very small to medium-size community water systems that meet the needs of populations
below 10,000 had health safety violations in 2003; these situations affected a total of 4,242,015
people.39
Because rural areas have fewer people to pay the cost of providing services, the cost of water service
is higher overall in rural than in urban areas.40 We used statistical tools to analyze the cost of water
service in areas where a relatively high percentage of the population reported lacking plumbing
services and found a weak relationship between the cost of water services and rural households
without plumbing (R2 of 0.018). Nonetheless, this relationship was significant (0.000 level).
Additional analysis shows that the cost of water services is rising at a higher rate than inflation,
especially in rural areas. Many observers are concerned that replacements or upgrades of obsolete
water systems in much of America, combined with the costs of complying with safe drinking water
standards, are likely to raise the cost of water infrastructure even more in the near future. While the
overall percentage of household income going to pay for water and sanitation services in the United
States is among the lowest in the world, there is a danger that certain portions of the population may
USEPA, Office of Watersheds, Oceans and Wetlands, Index of Watershed Indicators, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/iwi/;
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/factoids_2003.pdf; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pivottables.html, accessed May 25,
2004. There were 49,497 very small, small, and medium-size community water systems in the United States, of which 4,057 had health
safety violations in 2003.
39 USEPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), 2004,
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis/, accessed May 2, 2004.
40 John McCarthy, Anna Mehrotra, Stephen Gasteyer, Rahul Vaswani, and Blanca Surgeon, "The Price of Good Water: Water and
Sanitation Affordability," Rural Matters, Spring 2004, Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Washington, D.C.
38
39
find themselves unable to afford water services without sacrificing other basic needs, even though
water services may be available.41
Demographics
Our analysis shows that the breakdown by age of the people lacking water and sanitation services
more or less mirrors the age distribution for the general population. The elderly (age 65 years and
older) make up just over 10 percent of the people who lack plumbing services (Table 16). People
younger than 15 constitute just over 32 percent of the total population that lacks plumbing facilities.
The elderly and children are most at risk from the consequences of waterborne disease. For this
reason, it will be important to continue to track the access to services as well as the quality of water
and sanitation services specifically for these age groups.
Table 16. Population in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities,
by Age Group, 2000
Population in Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
Above 15 and
Below 5 years
Below 15 years
65 years and above
below 65 years
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
U.S.
143,117
8.01
443,291
24.80
1,019,009
57.01
181,897
10.18
Factors Influencing Trends in Access to Water and Sanitation
Socioeconomic Immigration
As documented above, people living without access to plumbing services are not evenly distributed
across ethnic groups or across geographic areas. American Indians and Alaska Natives, Hispanics,
and African Americans all disproportionately lack access to services. Similarly, the populations living
with inadequate access to services are highest in four regions—the Four Corners region of the
Southwest; the Black Belt across the southern United States; California; and the Mexican border
regions of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Of these four regions, California is the most striking because in this area the population that
reported lacking services actually increased between 1990 and 2000. At first glance, this increase
appears strange because during most of that decade California’s economy boomed, led by the dotcom boom in Silicon Valley. We hypothesize that two factors contributed to the rise of populations
in California living without access to water services. First, the boom of the 1990s led to an increase
in housing prices that far outstripped inflation and earning power for many people in California.
This situation was exacerbated when the economy began a downturn at the end of the decade. As
the economy soured, a relatively high number of people found themselves either homeless or living
in substandard housing. The socioeconomic conditions between 1995 and 2000, for example, led
345,573 Hispanics to leave California for nearby states.42 Second, the boom did open up high
numbers of very low-paying service jobs, which attracted immigrant labor. We suspect that most of
the immigrants came from Central and South America, where weakened economies made the
agricultural and service sector jobs in California seem an attractive economic opportunity. This
Ibid.
The net out-migration in this period was 345,573. Actually, 505,947 Hispanics left California but 160,374 Hispanics in-migrated
from other states into California during the same period. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t25.html,
accessed May 19, 2004.
41
42
40
relative prosperity, though, did not provide these immigrants with adequate remuneration to pay for
housing with improved services, especially in California’s inflated housing market.
The Census records show that a total of 660,076 Hispanic immigrants moved to California during
the latter half of the 1990s.43 The large majority of these immigrants presumably worked in lowpaying service sector positions. Of a total of 5,781,105 Hispanic workers above the age of 16 in
California in 2000, more than 41 percent were employed in medium-, low- and very low-paying jobs
or were unemployed (Table 17).44 In addition, 19.55 percent of the Hispanic population in California
between the ages of 18 and 64 years were below the poverty level in 1999.45
Table 17. Number of Hispanics Employed by Occupation in California, 2000
Occupation
Cooks and food preparation workers; waiters and waitresses
Other food preparation and serving workers, including supervisors
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations
Secretaries and administrative assistants
Agricultural workers, including supervisors
Carpenters, painters, paperhangers, woodworkers, metal and plastic workers
Construction laborers; other construction workers and helpers
Food-processing workers
Textile, apparel, and furnishings workers
Bus drivers; driver/sales workers and truck drivers
Motor vehicle operators, except bus and truck drivers
Laborers and material movers, hand; other material moving workers, except laborers
Unemployed, with no work experience since 1995
Total
Employed
257,683
100,843
486,966
92,185
283,245
266,255
140,504
40,393
146,848
184,004
9,374
291,749
80,340
2,380,389
Tulare County, California, the poorest county in California, is an example. Tulare County is largely
agricultural and employs a high number of people as agricultural laborers. According to the Census,
more than 1,500 people in this county live without access to complete plumbing services. Onsite
observation by Public Citizen, a national nonprofit organization, revealed “communities without
running water, many issues of contaminated water from the fertilizers and pesticides used in
farming, and communities that buy their water from tanker trucks for 25 cents a gallon.”46
Housing Development
In contrast, the decrease in the numbers of people living without access to basic services in
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi may be attributable to marginally better economic conditions.
With the improved economy, people began to move out of substandard housing units into
manufactured housing units, which often come with piped water units included. The number of
people living in mobile homes from 1990 to 2000 increased, on average in the three states, by 38.38
percent (Table 18). A critical issue of concern is that community or noncommunity water systems
that serve mobile home communities are more prone than other water systems to be in violation of
state and federal standards for health and the environment. Thus, while people may have access to
piped water, the water they are drinking may not be up to standards.
U.S. Census 2000, Migration by Race and Hispanic Origin for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States, Regions,
States, and Puerto Rico: 2000, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t25.html, accessed May 19, 2004.
44 Advanced Query Data Finder, http://advancedquery.census.gov, accessed May 19, 2004.
45Also, more than half (52.15 percent) of all poor Hispanic residents of California are in the age group of 18 to 64 years. Source: U.S.
Census 2000, http://www.fact.finder.census.gov, accessed May 19, 2004.
46Communication between the authors and John Gibler and Sara Grusky of Public Citizen, "Water for All Campaign,” Stephen
Gasteyer, May 15, 2004.
43
41
Table 18. Mobile Occupied Housing Units in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 1990–2000
Mobile Occupied Housing Units
State
2000
1990
% Change from 1990
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi
269,000
204,912
168,520
187,613
161,751
114,900
43.38
26.68
46.67
Clearly, these are associations, as opposed to verifiable relationships. But they do provide an insight
into some of the hypotheses that will need to be developed and tested as we try to understand
further the relationships that contribute to the access to or loss of water and sanitation service.
What Has Been and Is Being Done to Address These Issues?
The progress made since the 1950s has been the result of synergy among government investments,
community initiatives, and the assistance provided by several nongovernmental organizations. The
federal government has developed nationwide programs such as the Clean Water and Safe Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds to capitalize improvements in access to and quality of water and
sanitation services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provides a
combination of loans and grants to rural communities for the same purpose. In addition, federal
funds are available for infrastructure, including Community Development Block Grants and grants
from agencies such as the Indian Health Service – the latter obviously targeted toward American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
In addition, the federal government now funds an infrastructure of technical assistance programs
designed to aid communities in improving access to water and sanitation services, such as the Rural
Community Assistance Partnership, the National Rural Water Association, and the Environmental
Finance Centers. The USEPA also funds applied research and demonstration programs such as the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse and the Technical Assistance Centers.
While this institutional infrastructure has made a significant difference in providing water and
sanitation services over the past 30 years, it is important that these institutions are maintained for the
future. The challenges facing water systems are increasing rather than decreasing.
Ensuring That Water Infrastructure Is Adequately Maintained
While a greater proportion of the U.S. population than ever before has access to water and
sanitation services, new threats are emerging to those services, as follows:
§ New immigrant laborer populations are moving in to work as farm laborers or in other low-paid
sectors. These populations may live in substandard conditions, lacking basic services. This risk is
high if workers continue to come into the country as undocumented workers, especially in rural
areas, leaving them open to exploitation by their employers.
§ Water infrastructure in the United States was installed over three development waves: the early
1900s, the 1930s, and the 1950s–1970s. Because of the lifespan of the materials used during each
of these building eras, infrastructure replacement for all three is likely to be needed in the next
20 years. This will be tremendously costly, at a time when government resources are scarcer than
in the past. If local communities are expected to shoulder the cost of replacement themselves,
especially in rural areas, concerns about maintaining basic infrastructure will increase.
§ New environmental conditions and elements threaten our water supply. As regulations are
developed to try to address these threats, the costs of treatment are likely to rise. Treatment
42
costs will be especially problematic for rural community water systems, because they are not
likely to have economies of scale to help them afford the treatment technology.
Even as the United States continues to provide some of the best and least costly access to basic
services in the world, new challenges are threatening those services. The combination of aging
infrastructure, new population distribution, and growing demands creates complex challenges to
overcome for ensuring that people have access to services. Indeed, in a time when both federal and
state governments claim record deficits and are cutting popular programs, communities are facing
expensive new demands for water and sanitation services. Many small, low-income communities are
looking at costs in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to repair, upgrade, or
expand water systems to meet new needs.
For example, a study by the West Central Initiative in Minnesota found that in the west central
counties of Minnesota – where the percentages of people without plumbing service are lower than
the national average – communities were increasingly faced with the challenge of repairing or
replacing aging infrastructure. The study found that these communities faced a funding gap of $813
million to upgrade infrastructure systems, many of which were initially installed in the 1930s.47
Donaldson, Minnesota, is one of those communities. With a population of only 57, a median
household income of $15,938 in 1999, and an annual city operating budget of less then $15,000, the
city was dumbfounded by the need to eliminate two serious public health hazards: untreated sewage
that was being discharged into a road ditch, and a half-dozen rundown housing structures that were
homes to vermin. The municipal storm water system, built in 1936, discharged into a highway ditch
west of town. Septic systems installed for indoor plumbing in the 1950s and 1960s let the effluent
discharge directly into the city storm water system. A high water table and tight clay soils made
drainfields very expensive, and they typically performed poorly. Although this type of system was
effective in getting the wastewater out of town, the untreated sewage draining down the highway
ditch created a public health violation. In addition to the costs of constructing a new wastewater
system, the city faced penalties and fines from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The city
council also identified six properties that were in severe stages of neglect. Some had basements that
had six to eight feet of stagnant water, and others had dead animal carcasses and feces. All housed
some type of vermin. The structures had broken glass doors and windows, making it very easy for
children to gain access to the dangerous environment. Forcing the homeowners to clean up the
properties was not an option because the costs were insurmountable.
With the help of intermediaries to provide technical assistance, Donaldson has been able to contract
with an engineering firm to develop a solution that fits within the financial constraints of the
community. It also was able to secure a combination of loans and grants from state and federal
agencies, and it worked out a way to lower costs by doing some of the work itself, using local labor
and resources.48
While this case is taken from Minnesota, communities throughout the country are grappling with
similar issues. The critical point is that many communities will have to deal with such issues in the
future, even though the vast majority of U.S. residents have access to water and sanitation services.
West Central Initiative, West Central Initiative Infrastructure Study for West Central Minnesota Communities, 2000,
http://www.wcif.org/publications/infrastructurestudy.shtml, accessed May 24, 2004.
48 Case study taken from the Midwest Rural Community Assistance Program, New Prague, Minnesota.
47
43
Key Program and Policy Concerns Related to These Issues
We think of water and sanitation as a given in the United States. Yet the building and maintenance
of the infrastructure systems that make these resources available to us involve expensive
technologies and engineering expertise. More important are the resources that are managed through
social and institutional relationships.
USEPA estimates the shortfall in resources for infrastructure in the United States at between $200
billion and $500 billion over the next 20 years. Government resources will be critically important in
addressing this gap in funding. But government resources will also need to leverage private and
nonprofit resources. Ultimately, it is the communities and the counties that will incur these costs.
It would be a mistake to assume that the money needed to resolve this issue should be restricted to
resources for pipes and fittings. The provision and maintenance of water and sanitation over time
involves building the civic and social infrastructure so that communities themselves have the
capacity to make decisions about the scope and type of infrastructure that will ensure them water
and sanitation that is safe and affordable. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute in California, for
example, has been calling for more attention to the soft path (development of the social
infrastructure) to ensure access to adequate water and sanitation all over the world, including the
United States. He argues that advances in management and delivery of water resources of the last
two centuries have come about largely through implementing hard systems, meaning technology and
physical infrastructure that require high capital investment. Often these built and financial capital
investments have been made without regard to local desires and needs and without attention to
issues of representation and social justice.49
As a result, we have the community along Coal Run Road, outside Zanesville, Ohio, which was
systematically denied water services until recently, even though it was located next to a significant
urbanized area. The lack of water services had much more to do with social injustice than with
technology and financing.50 Similarly, the Environmental Finance Center at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill documented systematic lack of access to water services by African
American neighborhoods in the middle of larger metropolitan North Carolina communities.51
Critically related to these concerns is the very serious concern about the quality of drinking water. As
cited above, USEPA has found that significant portions of the population are subjected to water
that does not meet standards of safety and quality. A good portion of community water system
violations of SDWA standards are actually administrative in nature, indicating that management
capacity is as critical as technology.
The infrastructure investments of the future must combine reinvestment in physical infrastructure
with investment in a civic infrastructure. This civic infrastructure must involve improved training of
local water operators and water boards and investment of the time and effort to build participatory
networks that can create local support for water system maintenance and source water protection. It
may involve acceptance of alternative technologies that deliver safe drinking water at lower cost. The
soft path should provide opportunities for continual improvement in access to water and sanitation
through building human and social capacity.
As a society, we have made substantial progress since the 1950s in providing our citizens with access
to water and sanitation systems. In percentage terms, the number of people without services is small,
Peter Gleick, The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.
James Dao, “Ohio Town’s Water at Last Runs Past a Color Line,” New York Times, February 17, 2004, page A1.
51 Personal communication between the authors and the Environmental Finance Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
November 2003.
49
50
44
yet more than 670,000 households–close to 2 million people–still lack these very basic services.
Getting water to this population will require explicitly addressing the environmental justice issues
that are embedded in social and economic frameworks related to access to water services. In
addition, as costs of managing water systems rise, more low-income residents will be hardpressed to
pay water bills, even as the states are cutting programs that subsidize low-income residents.
Ultimately, a significant effort that draws on government and private resources is needed to address
the gap in water service and make certain it slows in the next decade.
This report shows that the lack of plumbing services is still very real for almost 2 million Americans.
While the rural-urban divide in the provision of these services has narrowed in the last decade, it
persists and is intrinsically related to the socioeconomic status of the people who lack these services.
Rural populations are still at a larger risk of lacking proper services, as infrastructure ages and
traditional funding for improvement programs is slowly being reduced. Across the United States,
in general, minority communities are affected more acutely. There are wide fluctuations across
geographic locations and areas. Some prominent areas are the Four Corners region and the
underserved parts of the Northeast and the South. Alaska stands out as a single state that needs
much improvement in infrastructure. Given Alaska’s unique condition, policy makers must pay
attention to enhancing services there that are socially acceptable, economically feasible, and
environmentally sustainable.
A closer look at the numbers within states, at the county or Census-designated place levels, provides
a clearer understanding of the reality of lack in plumbing services. The information at the substate
level, disaggregated, also allows for relative geographic comparisons within and among states and
permits a clearer comprehension of the larger nationwide picture. Our hypothesis and affirmed
assumptions are based on this examination and understanding of the numbers at the disaggregated
level, which are shown in the pages ahead and which the readers might find useful.
In the future, we hope to take this research toward a more complex analysis of the links among
social, economic, geographic, environmental, and public health variables that affect the positive
outcomes in services for traditionally and currently underserved communities. Our findings will
allow us to understand better how to enhance communities’ capacity for improving infrastructure
and services and ultimately achieving sustainable development.
The following maps and ranking tables disaggregate the population without plumbing for all states at
the county level and for the D.C., Puerto Rico, and the island areas to the Census designated place
(CDP) level.
45
46
47
48
49
States Ranked by Total Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000)
Total
Percent of
occupied
Total occupied
Percent of
Percent change in total
occupied
housing units
housing units
occupied
occupied housing units
housing units
lacking
lacking
housing units
lacking complete
State / Territory
lacking
complete
complete
lacking complete plumbing facilities, from
complete
plumbing
plumbing
plumbing
1990 to 2000 (base
plumbing
facilities
facilities (1990) facilities (1990)
year = 1990)
facilities (2000)
(2000)
85460
0.74
57974
0.56
47.41
California
65640
5.20
NA
NA
NA
Puerto Rico
58418
0.83
50428
0.76
15.84
New York
54853
0.74
56844
0.94
-3.50
Texas
30134
0.48
22061
0.43
36.59
Florida
24450
0.51
26355
0.59
-7.23
Pennsylvania
23959
0.52
21572
0.51
11.07
Illinois
21088
1.11
18352
1.34
14.91
Arizona
19550
0.72
35788
1.56
-45.37
Virginia
19407
0.44
24394
0.60
-20.44
Ohio
19295
0.62
33192
1.32
-41.87
North Carolina
17117
0.57
22921
0.97
-25.32
Georgia
16971
0.45
14687
0.43
15.55
Michigan
16530
0.54
12914
0.46
28.00
New Jersey
15211
0.62
9096
0.40
67.23
Massachusetts
14947
0.94
33623
2.44
-55.55
Kentucky
14340
0.64
23840
1.29
-39.85
Tennessee
14003
6.32
13489
7.14
3.81
Alaska
12457
0.55
10128
0.54
23.00
Washington
11923
0.54
14263
0.73
-16.41
Missouri
11905
1.76
11898
2.19
0.06
New Mexico
11005
0.63
20819
1.38
-47.14
Alabama
10717
0.65
14318
0.95
-25.15
Louisiana
10648
0.51
11780
0.65
-9.61
Wisconsin
10599
0.45
11288
0.55
-6.10
Indiana
9581
0.51
9382
0.57
2.12
Minnesota
9521
0.62
16626
1.32
-42.73
South Carolina
9033
0.46
10206
0.58
-11.49
Maryland
9015
0.86
17625
1.93
-48.85
Mississippi
8327
0.80
13030
1.46
-36.09
Arkansas
7546
0.56
7145
0.59
5.61
Oklahoma
7451
1.01
15972
2.32
-53.35
West Virginia
7243
0.44
4592
0.36
57.73
Colorado
7025
0.53
6426
0.58
9.32
Oregon
6466
0.50
4383
0.36
47.52
Connecticut
4832
0.42
5333
0.50
-9.39
Iowa
4468
0.86
7477
1.61
-40.24
Maine
4057
0.39
3695
0.39
9.80
Kansas
3833
0.95
3365
0.94
13.91
Hawaii
3638
0.48
1893
0.41
92.18
Nevada
2906
0.41
2163
0.40
34.35
Utah
2776
0.77
2357
0.77
17.78
Montana
2720
0.58
2246
0.62
21.10
Idaho
2408
0.36
2253
0.37
6.88
Nebraska
2254
0.47
2363
0.57
-4.61
New Hampshire
2194
0.54
1670
0.44
31.38
Rhode Island
2112
0.85
1585
0.63
33.25
1858
0.64
2315
0.89
-19.74
South Dakota
1481
0.62
1952
0.93
-24.13
Vermont
1124
0.44
1558
0.65
-27.86
North Dakota
1119
0.37
1160
0.47
-3.53
Delaware
1011
0.52
897
0.53
12.71
Wyoming
50
Percent change
in total
occupied
housing units
from 1990 to
2000 (base
year = 1990)
10.80
NA
6.29
21.78
23.43
6.25
9.27
38.90
17.77
8.76
24.43
27.03
10.71
9.66
8.74
15.28
20.46
17.30
21.31
11.90
24.92
15.28
10.46
14.40
13.12
15.01
21.92
13.26
14.82
17.00
11.29
6.96
29.30
20.88
5.79
7.98
11.37
9.86
13.18
61.09
30.53
17.15
30.20
10.60
15.42
8.06
-0.52
12.05
14.23
6.76
20.70
14.67
States of Territories Ranked by Percent of Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000)
Total
Percent of
Total occupied
Percent change in
occupied
Percent of
Percent change
occupied
housing units
total occupied
housing units
occupied housing
in total occupied
housing units
lacking
housing units lacking
lacking
units lacking
housing units
State / Territory
lacking
complete
complete plumbing
complete
complete
from 1990 to
complete
plumbing
facilities, from 1990 to
plumbing
plumbing facilities
2000 (base year
plumbing
facilities
2000 (base year =
facilities
(1990)
= 1990)
facilities (2000)
(1990)
1990)
(2000)
Alaska
Puerto Rico
New Mexico
Arizona
West Virginia
Hawaii
Kentucky
Maine
Mississippi
New York
Arkansas
Montana
California
Texas
Virginia
Louisiana
Tennessee
South Dakota
Alabama
Massachusetts
South Carolina
North Carolina
Vermont
Idaho
Georgia
Oklahoma
Washington
Missouri
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Oregon
Wyoming
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Connecticut
Nevada
Florida
New Hampshire
Maryland
Indiana
Michigan
North Dakota
Colorado
Ohio
Iowa
Utah
Kansas
Delaware
Nebraska
14003
65640
11905
21088
7451
3833
14947
4468
9015
2112
58418
8327
2776
85460
54853
19550
10717
14340
1858
11005
15211
9521
19295
1481
2720
17117
7546
12457
11923
16530
2194
7025
1011
23959
24450
10648
9581
6466
3638
30134
2254
9033
10599
16971
1124
7243
19407
4832
2906
4057
1119
2408
6.32
5.20
1.76
1.11
1.01
0.95
0.94
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.80
0.77
0.74
0.74
0.72
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.39
0.37
0.36
13489
NA
11898
18352
15972
3365
33623
7477
17625
1585
50428
13030
2357
57974
56844
35788
14318
23840
2315
20819
9096
16626
33192
1952
2246
22921
7145
10128
14263
12914
1670
6426
897
21572
26355
11780
9382
4383
1893
22061
2363
10206
11288
14687
1558
4592
24394
5333
2163
3695
1160
2253
7.14
NA
2.19
1.34
2.32
0.94
2.44
1.61
1.93
0.63
0.76
1.46
0.77
0.56
0.94
1.56
0.95
1.29
0.89
1.38
0.40
1.32
1.32
0.93
0.62
0.97
0.59
0.54
0.73
0.46
0.44
0.58
0.53
0.51
0.59
0.65
0.57
0.36
0.41
0.43
0.57
0.58
0.55
0.43
0.65
0.36
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.39
0.47
0.37
3.81
NA
0.06
14.91
-53.35
13.91
-55.55
-40.24
-48.85
33.25
15.84
-36.09
17.78
47.41
-3.50
-45.37
-25.15
-39.85
-19.74
-47.14
67.23
-42.73
-41.87
-24.13
21.10
-25.32
5.61
23.00
-16.41
28.00
31.38
9.32
12.71
11.07
-7.23
-9.61
2.12
47.52
92.18
36.59
-4.61
-11.49
-6.10
15.55
-27.86
57.73
-20.44
-9.39
34.35
9.80
-3.53
6.88
17.30
NA
24.92
38.90
6.96
13.18
15.28
11.37
14.82
-0.52
6.29
17.00
17.15
10.80
21.78
17.77
10.46
20.46
12.05
15.28
8.74
21.92
24.43
14.23
30.20
27.03
11.29
21.31
11.90
9.66
8.06
20.88
14.67
9.27
6.25
14.40
15.01
5.79
61.09
23.43
15.42
13.26
13.12
10.71
6.76
29.30
8.76
7.98
30.53
9.86
20.70
10.60
51
States Ranked by Total Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
State / Territory
Texas
Arizona
Alaska
Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
New Mexico
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Ohio
California
Alabama
Georgia
Missouri
Mississippi
West Virginia
Puerto Rico
Arkansas
South Carolina
New York
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Minnesota
Washington
Oklahoma
Maine
Louisiana
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
Colorado
Oregon
Maryland
Montana
Hawaii
Kansas
Idaho
South Dakota
New Hampshire
Vermont
Utah
Nebraska
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Wyoming
New Jersey
Nevada
Connecticut
Delaware
Rhode Island
52
Total rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(2000)
15169
13093
12462
12128
11672
10564
9095
8222
8112
7355
6785
6299
6234
6147
6109
5896
5673
5498
5476
5354
4879
4680
4602
4367
4066
3883
3786
3411
3137
2655
2508
2423
2256
2176
1873
1634
1589
1581
1312
1296
1215
1164
985
734
675
590
488
471
417
344
100
Percent of rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities (2000)
1.16
6.20
16.89
1.66
1.71
0.85
5.73
1.04
0.77
0.79
1.01
0.83
0.74
0.94
1.15
1.55
8.47
1.12
0.93
0.61
0.77
0.50
0.71
0.82
1.05
0.87
1.26
0.78
0.49
0.47
0.57
0.97
0.82
0.82
1.18
4.55
0.55
1.03
0.98
0.69
0.83
1.43
0.49
0.37
0.61
0.92
0.30
0.76
0.27
0.59
0.29
Total rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(1990)
26028
14007
11564
30003
30921
27743
10173
19438
14210
14480
8302
15812
15443
9717
14849
14925
NA
10328
12715
7750
7115
6137
7000
6022
5016
4741
6562
8335
5176
5331
3677
2369
3567
5308
1678
1253
2462
1741
1984
1746
1732
1092
1189
1150
1209
609
973
483
813
744
233
Percent of rural
occupied housing
units lacking
complete
plumbing facilities
(1990)
Percent change in
total rural occupied
complete plumbing
2000 (base year =
1990)
2.23
8.65
20.17
4.38
4.84
2.26
7.60
2.78
1.08
1.49
1.12
2.74
1.85
1.65
3.18
3.55
NA
2.56
2.31
0.78
1.20
0.64
1.02
1.28
1.22
1.28
2.63
1.83
0.71
0.84
0.90
1.12
1.16
1.74
1.22
3.19
0.87
1.19
1.59
0.90
1.24
1.66
0.60
0.35
1.10
1.08
0.35
0.96
0.33
1.12
0.47
-41.72
-6.53
7.77
-59.58
-62.25
-61.92
-10.60
-57.70
-42.91
-49.21
-18.27
-60.16
-59.63
-36.74
-58.86
-60.50
NA
-46.77
-56.93
-30.92
-31.43
-23.74
-34.26
-27.48
-18.94
-18.10
-42.30
-59.08
-39.39
-50.20
-31.79
2.28
-36.75
-59.01
11.62
30.41
-35.46
-9.19
-33.87
-25.77
-29.85
6.59
-17.16
-36.17
-44.17
-3.12
-49.85
-2.48
-48.71
-53.76
-57.08
Percent change
in total rural
occupied
housing units
from 1990 to
2000 (base year
= 1990)
12.33
30.46
28.71
6.88
6.91
0.84
18.56
13.70
-20.16
-3.84
-9.58
31.44
1.36
10.67
13.65
-9.28
NA
21.30
7.45
-11.17
7.29
-3.41
-5.18
13.00
-6.05
21.23
20.77
-3.61
-12.31
-10.72
7.30
17.98
-10.64
-13.16
14.71
-8.62
3.23
4.74
7.23
-3.25
4.93
23.32
0.20
-40.43
-0.11
14.55
-42.05
22.74
-36.60
-12.39
-30.61
States Ranked by Percent of Rural Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
State / Territory
Alaska
Puerto Rico
Arizona
New Mexico
Hawaii
Kentucky
Virginia
West Virginia
Utah
Maine
Montana
Texas
Mississippi
Arkansas
Washington
Tennessee
Idaho
California
South Dakota
Colorado
Missouri
South Carolina
Wyoming
Oklahoma
North Carolina
Alabama
Vermont
Minnesota
Maryland
Oregon
Ohio
Louisiana
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Georgia
Indiana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
New York
Delaware
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Florida
Nebraska
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Total rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(2000)
12462
5673
13093
9095
1634
11672
12128
5896
1164
3786
1873
15169
6109
5498
4066
8222
1581
6785
1312
2423
6147
5476
590
3883
10564
6299
1215
4367
2176
2256
7355
3411
8112
4879
471
6234
4602
1296
675
5354
344
2508
1589
4680
3137
985
2655
734
488
100
417
Percent of rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities (2000)
16.89
8.47
6.20
5.73
4.55
1.71
1.66
1.55
1.43
1.26
1.18
1.16
1.15
1.12
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.01
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.74
0.71
0.69
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.57
0.55
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.47
0.37
0.30
0.29
0.27
Total rural
occupied
housing units
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(1990)
11564
NA
14007
10173
1253
30921
30003
14925
1092
6562
1678
26028
14849
10328
5016
19438
1741
8302
1984
2369
9717
12715
609
4741
27743
15812
1732
6022
5308
3567
14480
8335
14210
7115
483
15443
7000
1746
1209
7750
744
3677
2462
6137
5176
1189
5331
1150
973
233
813
Percent of rural
occupied housing
units lacking
complete
plumbing facilities
(1990)
20.17
NA
8.65
7.60
3.19
4.84
4.38
3.55
1.66
2.63
1.22
2.23
3.18
2.56
1.22
2.78
1.19
1.12
1.59
1.12
1.65
2.31
1.08
1.28
2.26
2.74
1.24
1.28
1.74
1.16
1.49
1.83
1.08
1.20
0.96
1.85
1.02
0.90
1.10
0.78
1.12
0.90
0.87
0.64
0.71
0.60
0.84
0.35
0.35
0.47
0.33
Percent change in
total rural occupied
complete plumbing
2000 (base year =
1990)
7.77
NA
-6.53
-10.60
30.41
-62.25
-59.58
-60.50
6.59
-42.30
11.62
-41.72
-58.86
-46.77
-18.94
-57.70
-9.19
-18.27
-33.87
2.28
-36.74
-56.93
-3.12
-18.10
-61.92
-60.16
-29.85
-27.48
-59.01
-36.75
-49.21
-59.08
-42.91
-31.43
-2.48
-59.63
-34.26
-25.77
-44.17
-30.92
-53.76
-31.79
-35.46
-23.74
-39.39
-17.16
-50.20
-36.17
-49.85
-57.08
-48.71
Percent change
in total rural
occupied
housing units
from 1990 to
2000 (base year
= 1990)
28.71
NA
30.46
18.56
-8.62
6.91
6.88
-9.28
23.32
20.77
14.71
12.33
13.65
21.30
-6.05
13.70
4.74
-9.58
7.23
17.98
10.67
7.45
14.55
21.23
0.84
31.44
4.93
13.00
-13.16
-10.64
-3.84
-3.61
-20.16
7.29
22.74
1.36
-5.18
-3.25
-0.11
-11.17
-12.39
7.30
3.23
-3.41
-12.31
0.20
-10.72
-40.43
-42.05
-30.61
-36.60
53
State-by-State
Analysis at County Level
55
Explanation of Terms
Abbreviation
Full Term
HU
Housing Unit
OHU
Occupied Housing Units
OHULP
Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
%OHULP
Percentage of Occupied
Housing Units Lacking
Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Explanation
A housing unit is defined by the U.S. Census
2000 as: “A house, an apartment, a mobile
home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single
room occupied as separate living quarters, or
if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate
living quarters. Separate living quarters are
those in which the occupants live separately
from any other individuals in the building and
which have direct access from outside the
building or through a common hall. For
vacant units, the criteria of separateness and
direct access are applied to the intended
occupants whenever possible.” This is the
same definition which applies to all housing
units shown in the tables in this report.
This denotes all the housing units that were
occupied at the time of the census (both for
1990 and 2000 censuses).
This denotes all the occupied housing units, at
the time of the census, that lacked complete
plumbing facilities. “Lacking complete
plumbing facilities” indicates lack of any of
the three following facilities inside the
housing unit (this the same for the 1990 and
2000 censuses):
1) Hot and cold piped water
2) Bathtub or shower
3) Flush toilet
This is the percentage of occupied housing
units (i.e. as a percentage of the total
occupied housing units) that lack complete
plumbing facilities. This is calculated as:
(
ROHU
Rural Occupied Housing
Units
ROHULP
Units Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
%ROHULP
Percentage of Rural
Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
OHULP
OHU
)
X 100 = % OHULP
This denotes all the rural occupied housing
units. The U.S. Census 2000 defines all
territories, population and housing units to be
rural which are not classified as “urban”. (For
a detailed definition of “urban”, please look at
the glossary.)
units, at the time of the census, that lacked
complete plumbing facilities.
This is the percentage of rural occupied
housing units (i.e. as a percentage of the total
rural occupied housing units) that lack
complete plumbing facilities. This is
calculated as:
(
)
ROHULP
ROHU
X 100 = % ROHULP
57
Abbreviation
Full Term
Explanation
OHULP with Householder below
Poverty Level in 1999
Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities, with
Householder having Income
in 1999 below the Poverty
Level
This denotes all the occupied housing units
that lack complete plumbing facilities, with
householder having an income in 1999 below
the poverty level. (For a detailed description
of “poverty level” please see the definition
for “poverty” in the glossary.)
Percent of OHULP below poverty
level in 1999
Percentage of Occupied
Housing Units Lacking
Complete Plumbing
Facilities, with Householder
having Income in 1999
below the Poverty Level
This is the percentage of occupied housing
units that lack complete plumbing facilities,
and having a householder with an income in
1999 below the poverty level. The percentage
is calculated as:
OHULP below
poverty level in 1999
(
)
OHU below poverty
level in 1999
X 100 =
%OHULP below
Rural OHULP below poverty level in
1999
Level
units that lack complete plumbing facilities,
and having a householder with an income in
1999 below the poverty level.
Percent of Rural OHULP below
Percentage of Rural
Lacking Complete
Level
This is the percentage of rural occupied
housing units that lack complete plumbing
facilities, and having a householder with an
income in 1999 below the poverty level. The
percentage is calculated as:
Percentage of the
Population above 65 years
living in Occupied Housing
Plumbing Facilities
This denotes the percentage of the population
that is above 65 years and is living in
occupied housing units lacking complete
plumbing facilities. This is calculated as:
Percent of population above 65 years
in OHULP
Total population in OHULP
58
Total Population in
Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
ROHULP below
ROHU below poverty
level in 1999
(
)
Population above
65 years in OHULP
Population above
65 years in OHU
(
X 100 =
% ROHULP below
poverty level in
1999
)
X 100 = % Population above
65 year
This denotes the total number of people living
in occupied housing units that lack complete
plumbing facilities.
ALABAMA (AL)
Ranking
2000
20
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
11005
Occupied Housing Units (OHU)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.63
Alabama (AL)
County
Autauga
Baldwin
Barbour
Bibb
Blount
Bullock
Butler
Total
OHU
16003
55336
10409
7421
19265
3986
8398
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
82
264
68
88
103
27
65
OHULP
1990
20819
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.38
Rural
OHULP
2000
6299
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
population
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
above 65
Rural
(as % of
years in
OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.51
0.48
0.65
1.19
0.53
0.68
0.77
0.59
0.72
0.64
1.14
0.52
0.95
0.97
0.76
0.24
0.70
1.80
0.83
1.07
1.61
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.83
Rural
OHULP
1990
15812
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
2.74
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.74
1.33
1.47
2.30
0.92
1.33
2.39
2.71
2.15
1.67
2.48
1.08
2.01
3.50
164
634
134
178
273
65
206
59
Alabama (AL)
County
Calhoun
Chambers
Cherokee
Chilton
Choctaw
Clarke
Clay
Cleburne
Coffee
Colbert
Conecuh
Coosa
Covington
Crenshaw
Cullman
Dale
Dallas
DeKalb
Elmore
Escambia
Etowah
Fayette
Franklin
Geneva
Greene
Hale
Henry
Houston
Jackson
Jefferson
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lee
Limestone
Lowndes
Macon
Madison
Marengo
Marion
Marshall
Mobile
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Perry
Pickens
Pike
Randolph
Russell
St. Clair
60
Total
OHU
45307
14522
9719
15287
6363
10578
5765
5590
17421
22461
5792
4682
15640
5577
30706
18878
17841
25113
22737
14297
41615
7493
12259
10477
3931
6415
6525
35834
21615
263265
6468
36088
13538
45702
24688
4909
8950
109955
8767
12697
32547
150179
9383
86068
43602
4333
8086
11933
8642
19741
24143
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
252
118
49
88
117
143
80
50
139
93
60
19
110
31
147
92
151
247
99
106
117
44
48
54
137
193
85
243
164
1132
28
177
162
257
141
118
187
366
190
101
126
915
134
520
197
96
104
55
152
144
154
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.56
0.81
0.50
0.58
1.84
1.35
1.39
0.89
0.80
0.41
1.04
0.41
0.70
0.56
0.48
0.49
0.85
0.98
0.44
0.74
0.28
0.59
0.39
0.52
3.49
3.01
1.30
0.68
0.76
0.43
0.43
0.49
1.20
0.56
0.57
2.40
2.09
0.33
2.17
0.80
0.39
0.61
1.43
0.60
0.45
2.22
1.29
0.46
1.76
0.73
0.64
0.36
1.57
0.50
0.42
1.84
1.37
1.39
0.89
1.21
0.36
1.04
0.41
0.87
0.56
0.55
0.57
1.34
1.08
0.36
0.85
0.34
0.65
0.45
0.50
3.49
3.31
1.30
0.73
0.74
0.33
0.43
0.57
1.08
0.89
0.49
2.40
2.16
0.47
2.72
0.80
0.51
0.60
1.73
0.87
0.24
2.22
1.29
0.48
1.60
1.31
0.66
0.47
0.63
0.74
0.57
2.47
0.93
1.24
1.60
0.71
0.39
1.56
0.47
0.94
1.29
0.69
0.17
0.71
0.71
0.93
1.27
0.35
1.07
0.30
0.81
4.56
4.70
0.88
0.76
0.95
0.36
0.50
0.59
1.50
0.82
0.47
2.16
1.83
0.49
1.11
0.68
0.23
0.65
0.96
0.48
0.12
3.71
1.39
0.72
1.68
0.99
0.47
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.09
1.37
0.00
1.24
2.98
2.53
4.46
2.46
1.11
0.75
2.53
1.08
1.02
1.24
1.15
0.65
1.39
2.35
1.98
1.63
0.49
2.12
0.70
0.88
6.21
6.12
3.69
1.59
2.12
0.95
1.68
1.06
2.06
1.08
1.62
3.98
4.03
1.22
2.72
1.04
0.85
1.38
2.85
1.65
1.50
4.70
3.15
1.09
5.31
1.50
2.60
0.73
2.92
0.00
0.62
2.98
3.53
4.46
2.46
1.39
0.76
2.53
1.08
1.51
1.24
1.56
0.97
2.33
2.43
1.55
2.07
0.53
2.76
0.98
0.58
6.21
6.96
3.69
2.52
2.38
1.00
1.68
1.61
1.61
2.21
2.08
3.98
3.69
1.91
3.17
1.05
1.34
0.77
3.35
5.39
0.95
4.70
3.15
1.13
4.94
3.34
3.04
572
312
97
207
276
242
175
91
281
196
142
27
246
49
361
256
340
490
266
235
242
85
196
74
346
415
232
530
272
2622
47
456
313
562
266
267
471
708
512
192
193
2468
376
1167
520
168
226
124
343
339
323
Alabama (AL)
County
Shelby
Sumter
Talladega
Tallapoosa
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Washington
Wilcox
Winston
Total
OHU
54631
5708
30674
16656
64517
28364
6705
4776
10107
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
225
129
275
134
284
150
149
179
51
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.41
2.26
0.90
0.80
0.44
0.53
2.22
3.75
0.50
0.48
2.26
1.17
0.74
0.51
0.54
2.22
3.75
0.48
0.44
1.49
1.25
1.07
0.55
0.44
2.42
3.66
0.42
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.35
3.51
2.82
1.75
0.69
1.38
6.06
6.65
1.45
0.35
3.51
3.71
1.65
0.60
1.49
6.06
6.65
1.14
500
232
577
239
653
349
298
460
84
61
ALASKA (AK)
Ranking
2000
1
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
14003
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
6.32
OHULP
1990
13489
Alaska (AK)
Borough/
Census Area
Aleutians East
Borough
Aleutians West
Census Area
Anchorage
Municipality
Percent of
OHULP
1990
7.14
Rural
OHULP
2000
12462
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
below
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
poverty
(as % of
years in
level in
1999
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
526
4
0.76
0.76
NA
1270
17
1.34
1.96
NA
Total
OHU
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
16.89
Rural
OHULP
1990
11564
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
20.17
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.85
3.85
NA
6.25
7.41
42
94822
472
0.50
3.55
0.39
1.33
7.48
1080
Bethel Census Area
4226
2091
49.48
68.63
61.47
70.16
79.94
8853
Bristol Bay Borough
Denali Borough
Dillingham Census
Area
Fairbanks North
Star Borough
490
785
8
193
1.63
24.59
1.63
24.59
NA
15.25
13.51
36.21
13.51
36.21
14
374
1529
285
18.64
18.64
24.72
35.09
35.09
937
29777
2092
7.03
17.54
3.63
15.38
45.21
3551
991
157
15.84
15.84
4.71
27.17
27.17
334
Haines Borough
62
Alaska (AK)
Borough/
Census Area
Juneau City and
Borough
Kenai Peninsula
Borough
Ketchikan Gateway
Borough
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
below
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
poverty
(as % of
years in
level in
1999
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
11543
133
1.15
2.09
0.00
18438
1336
7.25
8.54
5399
91
1.69
4424
81
Total
OHU
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.94
0.00
236
6.17
15.42
18.67
2598
2.38
0.83
2.15
0.00
164
1.83
4.48
1.44
1.98
5.95
124
13.95
13.95
12.50
28.45
28.45
155
Kodiak Island
Borough
Lake and Peninsula
Borough
Matanuska-Susitna
Borough
588
82
20556
1708
8.31
12.30
4.33
20.41
26.85
3746
Nome Census Area
2693
883
32.79
49.11
37.20
61.99
73.08
3189
North Slope
Borough
2109
598
28.35
54.93
43.60
53.92
81.48
2070
1780
399
22.42
38.37
20.56
45.29
55.61
1578
2262
140
6.19
6.19
10.20
16.85
16.85
258
Northwest Arctic
Borough
Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan
Census Area
Sitka City and
Borough
Skagway-HoonahAngoon Census
Area
3278
46
1.40
1.43
NA
0.00
0.00
61
1369
144
10.52
10.52
8.23
30.91
30.91
261
Southeast Fairbanks
Census Area
2098
461
21.97
21.97
10.67
42.17
42.17
1176
Valdez-Cordova
Census Area
3884
472
12.15
12.15
13.33
36.50
36.50
881
Wade Hampton
Census Area
1602
831
51.87
51.87
48.18
69.29
69.29
3757
Wrangell-Petersburg
Census Area
2587
124
4.79
7.07
2.66
15.65
16.37
228
Yakutat City and
Borough
265
16
6.04
6.04
NA
2.94
2.94
38
Yukon-Koyukuk
Census Area
2309
1139
49.33
49.33
38.17
64.11
64.11
2850
Aleutians East
Borough
526
4
0.76
0.76
NA
3.85
3.85
NA
Aleutians West
Census Area
1270
17
1.34
1.96
NA
6.25
7.41
42
Anchorage
Municipality
Bethel Census Area
Bristol Bay Borough
Denali Borough
Dillingham Census
Area
94822
472
0.50
3.55
0.39
1.33
7.48
1080
4226
490
2091
8
49.48
1.63
68.63
1.63
61.47
NA
70.16
13.51
79.94
13.51
8853
14
785
193
24.59
24.59
15.25
36.21
36.21
374
18.64
18.64
24.72
35.09
35.09
937
1529
285
Fairbanks North
Star Borough
29777
2092
7.03
17.54
3.63
15.38
45.21
3551
Haines Borough
991
157
15.84
15.84
4.71
27.17
27.17
334
Juneau City and
Borough
11543
133
1.15
2.09
0.00
1.94
0.00
236
Kenai Peninsula
Borough
18438
1336
7.25
8.54
6.17
15.42
18.67
2598
63
Alaska (AK)
Borough/
Census Area
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
below
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
poverty
(as % of
years in
level in
1999
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Ketchikan Gateway
Borough
5399
91
1.69
2.38
0.83
2.15
0.00
164
Kodiak Island
Borough
4424
81
1.83
4.48
1.44
1.98
5.95
124
588
82
13.95
13.95
12.50
28.45
28.45
155
Lake and Peninsula
Borough
64
ARIZONA (AZ)
Ranking
2000
4
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
21088
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
1.11
Arizona (AZ)
County
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
OHULP
1990
18352
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.34
Rural
OHULP
2000
13093
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
6.20
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
14007
8.65
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
43.95
2.58
16.90
4.50
4.73
0.58
3.32
1.44
50.80
5.12
38.52
6.73
7.23
0.88
4.87
6.46
16908
1058
7251
668
486
72
292
15889
Total
OHU
19971
43893
40448
20140
10116
3117
8362
1132886
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
5155
476
2196
270
191
39
140
4992
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
25.81
1.08
5.43
1.34
1.89
1.25
1.67
0.44
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
33.54
1.89
13.57
1.54
2.97
1.97
2.08
1.06
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
34.14
1.23
11.32
0.60
0.53
0.83
1.17
0.22
65
Arizona (AZ)
County
Total
OHU
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
62809
30043
332350
61364
11809
70171
53848
66
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
492
3427
1891
692
119
410
598
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.78
11.41
0.57
1.13
1.01
0.58
1.11
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1.92
19.07
2.48
2.16
1.31
1.04
1.85
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.58
13.81
0.38
0.37
0.28
0.51
0.71
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.86
26.62
1.69
3.80
1.92
1.14
2.48
4.49
37.03
12.83
7.78
1.62
2.50
7.47
911
11019
4994
1828
398
729
1735
ARKANSAS (AR)
Ranking
2000
12
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
8327
Arkansas (AR)
County
Total
OHU
Arkansas
Ashley
Baxter
Benton
Boone
Bradley
Calhoun
Carroll
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Cleburne
Cleveland
Columbia
Conway
Craighead
Crawford
8457
9384
17052
58212
13851
4834
2317
10189
5205
8912
7417
10190
3273
9981
7967
32301
19702
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.80
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
84
76
126
317
136
58
16
160
74
95
32
45
34
116
55
110
208
OHULP
1990
13030
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.46
Rural
OHULP
2000
5498
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
OHULP
Rural OHULP
above 65
years in
(as % of
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.99
0.81
0.74
0.54
0.98
1.20
0.69
1.57
1.42
1.07
0.43
0.44
1.04
1.16
0.69
0.34
1.06
1.19
1.21
0.82
0.76
1.30
1.41
0.69
1.85
2.45
1.55
0.40
0.50
1.04
1.84
0.74
0.32
1.65
0.58
1.58
0.37
0.43
1.10
1.22
NA
1.55
0.53
0.85
0.24
0.31
0.72
0.72
0.76
0.25
0.41
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.12
Rural
OHULP
1990
10328
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
2.56
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.61
1.64
2.38
0.92
1.87
1.00
3.53
4.73
3.09
3.25
1.72
0.41
3.37
2.96
2.35
0.67
1.90
5.20
2.12
3.04
1.52
2.70
1.50
3.53
6.06
5.21
5.49
2.20
0.57
3.37
5.14
3.41
0.00
2.95
176
211
253
716
266
139
21
334
251
155
63
81
67
330
164
196
465
67
Arkansas (AR)
County
Crittenden
Cross
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Faulkner
Franklin
Fulton
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hempstead
Hot Spring
Howard
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lee
Lincoln
Little River
Logan
Lonoke
Madison
Marion
Miller
Mississippi
Monroe
Montgomery
Nevada
Newton
Ouachita
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Polk
Pope
Prairie
Pulaski
Randolph
St. Francis
Saline
Scott
Searcy
Sebastian
Sevier
Sharp
Stone
68
Total
OHU
18471
7391
3519
5922
7337
31882
6882
4810
37813
6241
14750
8959
12004
5471
13467
5440
6971
30555
8738
3434
7108
4182
4265
5465
8693
19262
5463
6776
15637
19349
4105
3785
3893
3500
11613
3989
9711
4504
10026
8047
20701
3894
147942
7265
10043
31778
4323
3523
45300
5708
7211
4768
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
174
54
53
58
54
207
62
38
171
38
53
77
96
37
114
87
32
257
106
56
43
67
32
85
81
119
220
130
94
137
50
41
80
247
123
33
115
30
53
92
161
26
699
80
109
192
35
106
199
58
70
127
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.94
0.73
1.51
0.98
0.74
0.65
0.90
0.79
0.45
0.61
0.36
0.86
0.80
0.68
0.85
1.60
0.46
0.84
1.21
1.63
0.60
1.60
0.75
1.56
0.93
0.62
4.03
1.92
0.60
0.71
1.22
1.08
2.05
7.06
1.06
0.83
1.18
0.67
0.53
1.14
0.78
0.67
0.47
1.10
1.09
0.60
0.81
3.01
0.44
1.02
0.97
2.66
1.47
0.56
1.88
1.42
1.37
1.08
1.08
0.83
0.46
0.35
0.57
1.10
0.81
0.94
1.02
1.60
0.49
0.78
1.39
1.63
0.47
1.77
0.75
1.45
1.33
0.73
4.03
1.92
0.46
0.83
1.32
1.08
2.29
7.06
0.99
0.83
1.47
0.67
0.71
1.50
1.10
0.67
0.40
1.64
0.81
0.66
0.74
3.01
0.45
1.52
1.20
2.66
1.53
1.02
0.53
1.21
1.09
0.35
0.43
0.49
0.47
1.49
NA
0.72
0.40
0.00
1.50
1.38
NA
0.93
0.99
3.56
0.35
2.01
0.53
1.56
0.94
1.07
3.79
1.25
0.93
1.08
1.73
0.85
3.09
6.82
1.57
NA
1.59
0.45
0.49
1.41
0.30
0.65
0.38
1.67
0.66
0.75
NA
1.43
0.34
1.30
0.70
2.68
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.84
1.06
3.54
1.68
1.88
2.47
2.58
0.88
1.26
0.29
1.02
2.17
3.33
1.11
2.30
4.16
1.19
1.67
1.88
2.91
1.08
0.91
2.07
2.10
1.48
2.43
6.93
6.11
0.75
1.12
3.31
4.04
5.07
12.40
2.00
4.26
2.42
2.46
1.25
2.42
1.98
1.02
1.25
3.95
2.36
2.35
2.53
5.31
0.46
2.99
2.63
6.09
3.75
1.94
2.51
3.80
3.55
6.07
3.39
1.02
1.16
0.38
1.52
4.02
3.80
1.35
3.27
4.16
0.48
1.18
1.97
2.91
1.69
0.88
2.07
2.10
2.35
4.06
6.93
6.11
0.64
1.47
3.51
4.04
6.72
12.40
1.58
4.26
3.62
2.46
1.64
2.91
2.24
1.02
1.54
6.67
2.50
1.74
1.79
5.31
1.41
5.65
2.97
6.09
458
127
178
129
187
480
126
68
323
120
76
192
207
104
249
140
73
608
266
150
70
193
53
184
163
360
424
269
179
293
119
87
170
509
333
59
182
47
95
148
346
43
1570
149
253
414
77
198
447
92
123
203
Arkansas (AR)
County
Total
OHU
Union
Van Buren
Washington
White
Woodruff
Yell
17989
6825
60151
25148
3531
7922
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
172
103
448
191
32
81
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.96
1.51
0.74
0.76
0.91
1.02
0.94
1.51
1.61
1.20
0.91
1.26
0.82
0.90
0.67
0.67
0.79
0.90
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.18
3.95
2.06
2.01
2.90
2.26
3.19
3.95
5.36
3.32
2.90
2.91
485
238
996
404
59
244
69
CALIFORNIA (CA)
Ranking
2000
14
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
85460
California (CA)
County
Total
OHU
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
523366
483
12759
79566
16469
6097
344129
9170
70
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.74
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
3293
17
52
437
128
75
1311
74
OHULP
1990
57974
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.56
Rural
OHULP
2000
6785
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.63
3.52
0.41
0.55
0.78
1.23
0.38
0.81
0.42
3.52
0.50
1.00
0.78
1.08
0.65
0.88
0.53
NA
0.19
0.37
0.42
0.61
0.28
1.42
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.01
Rural
OHULP
1990
8302
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1.12
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.52
3.66
0.54
1.41
2.84
2.26
1.39
2.28
0.00
3.66
0.83
3.87
2.97
1.81
4.89
2.67
9978
23
97
973
312
290
4054
243
California (CA)
County
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
58939
252940
9172
51238
39384
7703
208652
34418
23974
9625
3133774
36155
100650
6613
33266
63815
3784
5137
121236
45402
36894
935287
93382
9000
506218
453602
15885
528594
994677
329700
181629
92739
218
2294
33
575
439
79
1507
193
215
43
31288
278
523
58
653
800
40
17
743
170
303
5060
353
25
2516
1991
120
3371
6037
6803
1173
340
0.37
0.91
0.36
1.12
1.11
1.03
0.72
0.56
0.90
0.45
1.00
0.77
0.52
0.88
1.96
1.25
1.06
0.33
0.61
0.37
0.82
0.54
0.38
0.28
0.50
0.44
0.76
0.64
0.61
2.06
0.65
0.37
0.37
1.06
0.38
2.54
2.52
1.27
0.90
0.95
0.83
0.71
1.09
0.86
1.23
0.88
3.45
0.97
1.27
0.35
0.58
0.43
1.57
0.00
0.63
0.32
0.82
0.46
0.63
1.60
0.83
0.00
0.94
0.33
0.17
0.58
0.46
0.72
1.05
1.29
0.48
0.75
0.13
0.48
0.65
0.72
0.37
1.05
0.64
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.31
0.08
0.31
0.23
0.22
0.35
0.25
0.51
0.37
0.37
2.11
0.41
0.24
0.97
1.97
1.68
2.32
1.62
3.28
1.66
0.74
1.99
0.92
2.28
1.48
0.81
0.86
4.01
3.13
1.95
2.05
1.41
0.77
2.36
1.44
0.32
1.44
1.24
1.15
2.66
1.38
1.60
6.28
1.58
0.57
0.67
2.36
1.15
6.72
6.13
3.30
1.95
0.00
2.07
1.57
3.76
1.16
2.04
0.86
7.22
1.69
1.65
4.57
0.17
0.00
4.79
0.00
0.79
1.73
3.51
0.00
2.92
4.22
2.98
0.00
2.23
0.85
521
9415
84
1327
1095
184
5373
591
604
55
105129
1016
1199
108
1388
3515
49
35
3043
502
671
20916
1012
36
8889
5816
458
11585
17369
12007
3952
700
254103
136622
565863
91139
63426
1520
18556
130403
172403
145146
27033
21013
5587
110385
21004
243234
59375
20535
1279
815
2867
924
274
31
209
661
840
827
157
90
101
1065
96
1153
241
185
0.50
0.60
0.51
1.01
0.43
2.04
1.13
0.51
0.49
0.57
0.58
0.43
1.81
0.96
0.46
0.47
0.41
0.90
1.28
1.09
1.10
1.85
0.79
2.04
1.48
0.92
0.67
0.54
0.59
0.65
1.81
1.12
0.58
0.77
0.37
0.75
0.32
0.41
0.44
0.52
0.52
0.00
0.62
0.47
0.22
0.47
NA
0.12
1.16
0.85
0.17
0.27
0.39
0.83
1.42
1.49
1.17
2.99
1.18
11.92
2.41
1.09
1.05
1.22
1.29
1.59
3.35
1.99
1.60
1.47
0.60
1.80
0.00
2.25
0.00
6.37
3.60
11.92
3.56
1.80
3.21
0.90
2.04
2.12
3.35
2.26
2.36
3.46
0.00
2.40
4568
2857
9953
2468
704
42
392
1946
2049
2955
555
196
170
4230
177
4429
628
696
71
COLORADO (CO)
Ranking
2000
46
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
7243
Colorado (CO)
County
Adams
Alamosa
Arapahoe
Archuleta
Baca
Bent
Boulder
Chaffee
Cheyenne
Clear Creek
Conejos
Costilla
Crowley
Custer
Delta
72
Total
OHU
128156
5467
190909
3980
1905
2003
114680
6584
880
4019
2980
1503
1358
1480
11058
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.44
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
425
26
582
90
14
21
410
54
0
60
34
93
1
94
110
OHULP
1990
4592
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.36
Rural
OHULP
2000
2423
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.33
0.48
0.30
2.26
0.73
1.05
0.36
0.82
0.00
1.49
1.14
6.19
0.07
6.35
0.99
0.12
1.26
0.12
3.18
0.73
1.89
1.48
1.10
0.00
1.53
1.14
6.19
0.07
6.35
1.22
0.37
0.75
0.27
1.77
0.85
NA
0.05
0.00
0.00
NA
0.65
5.54
0.00
2.10
0.29
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.97
Rural
OHULP
1990
2369
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1.12
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.55
0.60
0.83
7.17
1.99
1.70
0.82
0.77
0.00
6.74
3.16
12.47
0.41
11.11
4.03
0.41
2.40
0.00
11.39
1.99
1.60
3.17
0.00
0.00
7.14
3.16
12.47
0.41
11.11
5.54
1486
43
1779
139
23
38
821
77
0
85
53
159
9
180
242
Colorado (CO)
County
Denver
Dolores
Douglas
Eagle
Elbert
El Paso
Fremont
Garfield
Gilpin
Grand
Gunnison
Hinsdale
Huerfano
Jackson
Jefferson
KIA
Kit Carson
Lake
La Plata
Larimer
Las Animas
Lincoln
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
239235
785
60924
15148
6770
192409
15232
16229
2043
5075
5649
359
3082
661
206067
665
2990
2977
17342
97164
6173
2058
1377
28
128
84
33
570
111
37
61
53
36
9
53
0
657
0
45
28
129
195
92
3
0.58
3.57
0.21
0.55
0.49
0.30
0.73
0.23
2.99
1.04
0.64
2.51
1.72
0.00
0.32
0.00
1.51
0.94
0.74
0.20
1.49
0.15
0.00
3.57
0.30
0.80
0.49
0.67
1.61
0.15
2.99
1.04
1.15
2.51
2.88
0.00
0.88
0.00
1.71
2.24
0.95
0.67
2.56
0.15
0.42
4.35
0.35
1.46
NA
0.23
0.53
0.29
NA
0.75
0.77
0.00
1.15
0.00
0.35
0.00
3.96
NA
0.77
0.29
1.47
NA
1.27
8.26
0.57
1.48
1.86
0.93
2.33
0.80
30.26
5.29
0.00
0.00
5.36
0.00
0.90
0.00
2.87
4.01
1.26
0.26
2.35
0.00
0.00
8.26
0.00
2.55
1.86
2.07
5.25
0.00
30.26
5.29
0.00
0.00
9.52
0.00
1.83
0.00
5.65
11.27
1.26
4.01
5.09
0.00
3320
64
391
163
110
1571
397
60
97
88
50
9
110
0
1343
0
125
31
279
419
218
NA
Logan
Mesa
Mineral
7551
45823
377
34
147
2
0.45
0.32
0.53
0.00
0.56
0.53
0.43
0.48
NA
0.93
0.67
5.13
0.00
0.95
5.13
84
229
NA
Moffat
Montezuma
Montrose
Morgan
Otero
Ouray
Park
Phillips
Pitkin
Prowers
Pueblo
Rio Blanco
Rio Grande
Routt
Saguache
San Juan
San Miguel
Sedgwick
Summit
Teller
Washington
Weld
Yuma
4983
9201
13043
9539
7920
1576
5894
1781
6807
5307
54579
2306
4701
7953
2300
269
3015
1165
9120
7993
1989
63247
3800
13
74
26
30
37
8
109
8
49
20
276
0
24
38
63
6
51
2
39
52
17
368
7
0.26
0.80
0.20
0.31
0.47
0.51
1.85
0.45
0.72
0.38
0.51
0.00
0.51
0.48
2.74
2.23
1.69
0.17
0.43
0.65
0.85
0.58
0.18
0.45
1.13
0.31
0.33
0.52
0.51
1.85
0.45
1.03
1.02
0.78
0.00
0.82
0.67
2.74
2.23
1.69
0.17
1.24
1.09
0.85
0.54
0.27
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.47
0.23
0.00
1.85
1.40
0.00
NA
0.50
0.00
0.60
0.00
2.24
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.60
0.26
NA
0.00
2.02
0.13
0.00
0.29
0.00
7.21
2.04
6.87
1.31
0.64
0.00
1.07
1.11
5.70
7.14
2.80
0.00
0.00
1.16
1.96
1.38
0.00
0.00
2.62
0.31
0.00
0.97
0.00
7.21
2.04
13.97
3.60
2.86
0.00
2.09
2.76
5.70
7.14
2.80
0.00
0.00
1.80
1.96
0.86
0.00
50
146
82
86
108
15
188
18
100
48
598
0
70
45
155
9
92
NA
70
107
39
1233
11
73
CONNECTICUT (CT)
Ranking
2000
38
County
Fairfield
Hartford
Litchfield
Middlesex
New Haven
New London
Tolland
Windham
74
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
6466
Total
OHU
324232
335098
71551
61341
319040
99835
49431
41142
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.50
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
1557
2012
208
166
1862
360
109
192
OHULP
1990
4383
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.36
Rural
OHULP
2000
417
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.48
0.60
0.29
0.27
0.58
0.36
0.22
0.47
0.43
0.11
0.33
0.12
0.16
0.36
0.27
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.44
0.20
0.42
0.26
0.08
0.19
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.27
Rural
OHULP
1990
813
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
0.33
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.28
1.97
1.62
0.75
1.67
1.19
0.56
1.04
2.83
0.00
2.28
0.00
5.33
0.00
1.40
0.61
4573
5440
392
351
4473
1030
186
566
DELAWARE (DE)
Ranking
2000
51
County
Kent
New Castle
Sussex
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
1119
Total
OHU
47224
188935
62577
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.37
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
147
605
367
OHULP
1990
1160
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.47
Rural
OHULP
2000
344
Percent of
population
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
Rural OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHULP
OHU)
Rural OHU)
0.31
0.32
0.59
0.60
0.19
0.71
0.36
0.29
0.49
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.59
Rural
OHULP
1990
744
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1.12
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.06
0.86
1.06
2.41
0.00
0.87
321
1395
814
75
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DC)
Ranking
2000
10
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
2112
County
76
Total
OHU
248338
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.85
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2112
OHULP
1990
1585
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.63
Rural
OHULP
2000
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent
of OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.85
0.00
0.55
0
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.00
0
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.73
0.00
5508
Rural
OHULP
1990
FLORIDA (FL)
Ranking
2000
40
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
30134
OHULP
1990
0.48
Percent of
OHULP
1990
22061
Florida (FL)
Rural
OHULP
2000
0.43
3137
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.49
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
5176
0.71
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.90
3.19
0.85
2.57
0.66
0.92
1.33
0.35
1.34
3.97
0.71
2.05
1.05
0.00
1.25
0.00
934
142
287
152
1367
7350
108
270
County
Total
OHU
Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
87509
7043
59597
8497
198195
654445
4468
63864
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
387
45
154
77
590
2617
51
144
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
0.44
0.64
0.26
0.91
0.30
0.40
1.14
0.23
0.49
0.78
0.42
0.80
0.61
0.00
1.08
0.38
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.48
0.99
0.19
1.63
0.26
0.27
1.27
0.14
77
Florida (FL)
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
DeSoto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
52634
50243
102973
20925
10746
5205
303747
111049
21294
4096
15867
5021
3852
4931
4161
8166
10850
55425
37471
391357
6921
49137
16620
4695
2142
88413
188599
96521
13867
132
130
545
55
42
47
1429
435
31
20
200
14
15
12
27
57
81
141
108
1924
54
108
132
29
12
279
743
336
98
0.25
0.26
0.53
0.26
0.39
0.90
0.47
0.39
0.15
0.49
1.26
0.28
0.39
0.24
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.25
0.29
0.49
0.78
0.22
0.79
0.62
0.56
0.32
0.39
0.35
0.71
0.30
0.14
0.77
0.08
0.54
0.85
0.38
0.38
0.24
0.70
1.41
0.28
0.36
0.38
0.63
0.58
1.05
0.29
0.25
0.52
0.83
0.51
0.71
0.62
0.56
0.37
0.52
0.47
0.71
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.28
0.55
0.00
0.49
0.44
0.05
NA
1.39
0.96
0.40
NA
NA
0.20
0.27
0.19
0.15
0.34
1.52
0.15
0.63
1.75
NA
0.18
0.19
0.32
0.88
1.04
1.40
2.80
0.90
0.86
1.88
1.06
0.77
0.13
1.84
2.99
0.51
0.73
0.46
1.46
1.13
1.04
0.31
0.95
1.14
2.34
0.52
2.25
1.09
2.69
0.71
1.09
0.81
1.75
1.24
0.90
3.27
0.11
1.24
1.26
1.36
0.52
0.33
2.88
4.50
0.51
1.03
0.69
1.26
1.74
0.00
0.00
1.05
0.73
2.51
4.43
2.31
1.09
2.69
0.52
2.53
2.97
1.75
392
396
1480
95
103
89
3088
957
75
26
564
32
33
13
57
282
298
335
307
5468
70
262
217
111
34
660
2091
712
251
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
2222
6629
112460
14
113
284
0.63
1.70
0.25
0.63
1.18
0.23
0.00
3.51
0.10
0.46
2.66
0.75
0.46
1.24
0.00
46
298
704
Marion
Martin
Miami-Dade
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
106755
55288
776774
35086
21980
66269
12593
336286
60977
474175
147566
414968
187233
27839
49614
76933
43793
149937
139572
20779
305
151
7948
279
101
235
101
1896
257
2140
345
1232
656
148
95
382
136
410
495
84
0.29
0.27
1.02
0.80
0.46
0.35
0.80
0.56
0.42
0.45
0.23
0.30
0.35
0.53
0.19
0.50
0.31
0.27
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.33
1.15
1.07
0.40
0.60
0.30
0.79
0.33
0.44
0.47
0.00
0.31
0.60
0.25
0.57
0.45
0.15
1.08
0.47
0.26
0.15
1.00
0.65
0.22
0.28
0.48
0.48
0.17
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.15
0.32
0.25
0.46
0.41
0.24
0.41
0.27
0.76
0.21
1.84
2.31
1.36
1.50
1.98
1.22
1.09
1.27
0.34
0.75
0.98
1.21
0.37
1.59
1.22
0.58
0.41
0.87
0.77
0.00
5.63
3.27
2.03
2.17
0.00
5.29
1.76
3.72
1.00
0.00
0.79
1.46
0.00
0.00
1.48
0.00
0.00
0.35
718
395
23598
551
288
595
211
5474
819
5514
836
2540
1867
380
249
973
297
912
1167
158
78
Florida (FL)
County
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington
Total
OHU
13460
7176
3367
184723
8450
16548
7931
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
102
80
12
580
65
106
81
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
0.76
1.11
0.36
0.31
0.77
0.64
1.02
0.77
0.65
0.24
0.33
0.77
0.51
0.99
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.53
1.84
0.00
0.24
NA
0.72
0.78
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.28
1.75
1.55
0.84
2.40
1.32
2.00
2.42
0.00
1.92
2.30
2.40
1.11
1.90
267
191
29
1605
194
159
189
79
GEORGIA (GA)
Ranking
2000
26
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
17117
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.57
Georgia (GA)
County
Appling
Atkinson
Bacon
Baker
Baldwin
Banks
80
OHULP
1990
22921
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.97
Rural
OHULP
2000
6234
Total
OHU
6606
2717
3833
1514
14758
5364
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
24
35
5
13
89
43
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.36
1.29
0.13
0.86
0.60
0.80
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
0.52
1.29
0.18
0.86
1.05
0.85
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.50
0.99
0.00
1.45
0.39
1.33
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.74
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
15443
1.85
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below poverty
level in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.16
3.32
0.00
0.00
0.86
2.18
0.25
3.32
0.00
0.00
2.33
2.32
67
129
10
66
186
107
Georgia (GA)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below poverty
level in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Barrow
Bartow
Ben Hill
Berrien
Bibb
Bleckley
Brantley
Brooks
Bryan
Bulloch
Burke
Butts
Calhoun
Camden
Candler
Carroll
Catoosa
Charlton
Chatham
Chattahoochee
Chattooga
Cherokee
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Clinch
Cobb
Coffee
Colquitt
Columbia
Cook
16354
27176
6673
6261
59667
4372
5436
6155
8089
20743
7934
6455
1962
14705
3375
31568
20425
3342
89865
2932
9577
49495
39706
1347
82243
2512
227487
13354
15495
31120
5882
109
97
37
4
319
48
29
75
33
81
111
75
24
91
33
138
16
30
510
27
38
203
175
23
306
27
763
89
109
132
58
0.67
0.36
0.55
0.06
0.53
1.10
0.53
1.22
0.41
0.39
1.40
1.16
1.22
0.62
0.98
0.44
0.08
0.90
0.57
0.92
0.40
0.41
0.44
1.71
0.37
1.07
0.34
0.67
0.70
0.42
0.99
0.39
0.35
0.85
0.09
0.18
1.77
0.43
1.34
0.68
0.47
1.45
1.03
1.22
0.74
1.00
0.47
0.00
0.31
0.21
1.28
0.67
0.73
0.48
1.71
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.59
0.45
0.51
0.77
0.86
0.62
NA
NA
0.35
1.10
0.57
0.63
0.43
0.36
3.22
1.92
NA
1.14
1.35
0.78
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.00
0.32
0.65
0.42
NA
NA
2.80
0.47
1.50
0.21
0.89
0.47
1.21
1.08
0.81
0.00
1.11
0.87
0.91
2.18
1.01
0.36
4.41
4.31
2.92
1.14
0.00
1.19
0.77
0.56
1.32
3.74
1.55
2.50
0.59
1.65
0.73
1.88
0.90
2.39
1.83
1.74
2.14
1.33
1.03
2.89
0.00
0.90
2.28
0.23
2.38
1.55
0.61
5.17
1.83
2.92
1.84
0.00
2.30
0.00
0.00
1.01
5.29
2.79
5.84
1.90
1.65
0.00
2.47
0.00
2.33
2.13
1.72
2.27
268
260
114
22
832
148
59
203
88
263
225
218
47
215
69
323
83
119
1508
51
61
556
468
36
1141
70
1820
212
169
395
133
Coweta
Crawford
Crisp
Dade
Dawson
Decatur
DeKalb
Dodge
Dooly
Dougherty
Douglas
Early
Echols
Effingham
Elbert
Emanuel
Evans
Fannin
Fayette
Floyd
Forsyth
31442
4461
8337
5633
6069
10380
249339
7062
3909
35552
32822
4695
1264
13151
8004
8045
3778
8369
31524
34028
34565
191
27
72
82
0
66
1161
111
34
330
78
71
0
115
60
72
22
43
121
171
129
0.61
0.61
0.86
1.46
0.00
0.64
0.47
1.57
0.87
0.93
0.24
1.51
0.00
0.87
0.75
0.89
0.58
0.51
0.38
0.50
0.37
0.71
0.61
0.74
1.37
0.00
0.92
0.00
1.72
0.78
0.55
0.09
1.27
0.00
1.03
0.81
1.19
0.74
0.51
0.60
0.45
0.46
0.31
1.07
1.65
0.58
0.00
0.89
0.31
1.26
1.94
1.34
0.00
1.01
0.00
1.30
0.82
NA
NA
0.55
NA
0.67
0.37
1.51
2.48
2.01
4.81
0.00
2.35
0.77
1.82
1.02
1.84
0.61
3.86
0.00
4.80
2.43
2.23
0.31
1.43
0.00
1.44
0.51
4.57
2.48
1.72
5.42
0.00
3.56
0.00
2.30
0.88
0.00
0.00
3.45
0.00
5.42
3.98
3.15
0.19
1.43
0.00
1.36
0.00
441
60
160
135
0
173
3282
261
99
1045
183
295
0
443
148
160
47
73
346
355
440
81
Georgia (GA)
County
Total
OHU
Franklin
Fulton
Gilmer
Glascock
Glynn
Gordon
Grady
Greene
Gwinnett
Habersham
Hall
Hancock
Haralson
Harris
Hart
Heard
Henry
Houston
Irwin
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Jones
Lamar
Lanier
Laurens
Lee
Liberty
Lincoln
Long
Lowndes
Lumpkin
McDuffie
McIntosh
Macon
Madison
Marion
Meriwether
Miller
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Murray
Muscogee
Newton
Oconee
Oglethorpe
7888
321242
9071
1004
27208
16173
8797
5477
202317
13259
47381
3237
9826
8822
9106
4043
41373
40911
3644
15057
4175
4828
6339
3214
3130
8659
5712
2593
17083
8229
19383
3251
3574
32654
7537
7970
4202
4834
9800
2668
8248
2487
8063
7719
2919
5558
13286
69819
21997
9051
4849
82
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
24
1967
57
9
200
87
36
58
646
68
255
103
63
79
61
47
105
95
18
91
53
41
83
44
42
19
50
12
138
92
155
68
29
143
54
114
57
68
58
28
112
19
89
91
33
50
75
326
173
25
66
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.30
0.61
0.63
0.90
0.74
0.54
0.41
1.06
0.32
0.51
0.54
3.18
0.64
0.90
0.67
1.16
0.25
0.23
0.49
0.60
1.27
0.85
1.31
1.37
1.34
0.22
0.88
0.46
0.81
1.12
0.80
2.09
0.81
0.44
0.72
1.43
1.36
1.41
0.59
1.05
1.36
0.76
1.10
1.18
1.13
0.90
0.56
0.47
0.79
0.28
1.36
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
0.34
0.61
0.56
0.90
0.58
0.59
0.55
1.12
1.06
0.42
0.31
3.51
0.54
0.93
0.56
1.16
0.11
0.50
0.23
0.58
1.27
1.02
1.41
1.43
1.34
0.07
0.79
0.49
1.09
1.58
1.33
2.09
0.90
0.29
0.72
0.43
1.45
1.32
0.52
1.05
1.55
0.76
0.71
1.04
1.15
1.19
0.58
0.00
0.90
0.26
1.36
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.87
0.54
1.53
NA
0.38
0.64
0.41
1.28
0.28
0.53
0.59
4.27
0.51
1.44
0.00
1.52
0.50
0.17
0.98
1.38
1.30
0.00
2.05
0.72
1.81
0.69
2.10
NA
0.93
2.32
2.06
NA
5.17
0.26
0.72
0.65
1.29
1.37
1.18
1.67
0.50
1.12
1.29
1.71
0.92
1.83
0.89
0.45
1.35
0.89
1.71
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below poverty
level in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
1.54
2.12
0.00
1.07
0.34
0.99
2.95
0.86
1.17
1.33
4.48
1.21
3.30
0.50
3.19
1.41
0.33
1.46
1.00
2.64
0.62
2.47
2.56
2.36
0.97
2.53
1.13
1.35
3.07
3.04
5.63
0.75
0.80
0.56
3.50
4.13
1.77
1.11
2.27
3.52
1.85
1.67
4.98
1.80
1.98
0.16
0.76
1.05
1.75
3.52
0.00
0.00
2.20
0.00
0.00
0.21
2.26
3.44
0.00
1.54
1.29
5.52
0.92
3.37
0.00
3.19
1.50
1.38
1.73
1.16
2.64
1.05
3.06
4.56
2.36
0.43
0.00
1.13
1.49
5.74
5.13
5.63
0.87
0.59
0.00
1.24
5.60
1.78
1.16
2.27
4.36
1.85
0.99
7.09
1.82
3.08
0.23
0.00
1.99
4.42
3.52
76
5317
122
23
396
184
66
164
2304
226
881
230
139
183
134
81
315
341
18
241
237
92
150
67
67
63
114
29
293
284
363
152
54
298
101
261
113
188
250
82
236
19
315
183
89
93
146
876
491
38
144
Georgia (GA)
County
Paulding
Peach
Pickens
Pierce
Pike
Polk
Pulaski
Putnam
Quitman
Rabun
Randolph
Richmond
Rockdale
Schley
Screven
Seminole
Spalding
Stephens
Stewart
Sumter
Talbot
Taliaferro
Tattnall
Taylor
Telfair
Terrell
Thomas
Tift
Toombs
Towns
Treutlen
Troup
Turner
Twiggs
Union
Upson
Walker
Walton
Ware
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
White
Whitfield
Wilcox
Wilkes
Wilkinson
Worth
Total
OHU
28089
8436
8960
5958
4755
14012
3407
7402
1047
6279
2909
73920
24052
1435
5797
3573
21519
9951
2007
12025
2538
870
7057
3281
4140
4002
16309
13919
9877
3998
2531
21920
3435
3832
7159
10722
23605
21307
13475
2435
7435
9324
911
2011
7731
29385
2785
4314
3827
8106
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
65
55
37
7
56
104
66
66
9
63
43
415
88
9
43
48
201
33
72
90
50
24
80
25
38
82
93
64
79
2
11
190
46
80
54
94
163
173
51
29
173
80
15
21
22
103
52
64
42
96
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.23
0.65
0.41
0.12
1.18
0.74
1.94
0.89
0.86
1.00
1.48
0.56
0.37
0.63
0.74
1.34
0.93
0.33
3.59
0.75
1.97
2.76
1.13
0.76
0.92
2.05
0.57
0.46
0.80
0.05
0.43
0.87
1.34
2.09
0.75
0.88
0.69
0.81
0.38
1.19
2.33
0.86
1.65
1.04
0.28
0.35
1.87
1.48
1.10
1.18
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
0.37
0.74
0.37
0.15
1.18
0.82
0.68
0.67
0.75
1.00
1.62
0.99
0.69
0.63
0.92
1.23
0.59
0.43
3.59
0.67
1.97
2.76
0.80
0.76
0.74
2.69
0.59
0.26
0.69
0.05
0.76
0.72
1.42
2.09
0.75
0.90
1.11
0.68
0.42
1.19
2.75
0.88
1.65
1.04
0.28
0.30
1.87
1.90
1.10
0.60
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.41
1.18
0.49
0.00
1.17
1.21
0.94
1.02
0.00
1.53
0.88
0.47
0.15
1.90
0.44
0.58
0.67
0.43
4.66
0.28
1.39
4.95
0.65
0.72
1.87
1.63
0.29
0.32
0.84
0.00
0.93
1.00
1.23
3.07
0.59
0.95
0.88
0.60
0.22
NA
2.91
1.62
2.56
NA
0.00
0.54
1.68
0.61
2.15
0.84
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below poverty
level in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.41
0.49
1.49
0.62
3.89
1.00
1.77
1.70
1.68
2.96
1.07
1.01
1.19
3.13
1.02
1.40
2.95
1.08
6.58
1.97
3.14
3.24
3.29
2.38
1.72
1.36
1.05
0.88
3.31
0.37
1.60
1.62
4.39
6.78
2.11
1.53
2.53
1.46
0.80
1.35
6.47
1.13
5.29
3.36
0.93
0.38
3.19
3.40
2.08
4.63
1.91
0.00
2.29
0.93
3.89
1.26
2.24
0.00
0.00
2.96
2.43
2.32
3.40
3.13
1.21
2.33
1.48
2.41
6.58
1.92
3.14
3.24
2.26
2.38
1.89
1.85
0.69
0.00
3.38
0.37
3.55
3.62
4.84
6.78
2.11
3.29
3.09
1.87
3.21
1.35
9.58
0.94
5.29
3.36
0.93
0.00
3.19
5.83
2.08
2.42
163
95
64
11
141
207
209
195
16
107
152
1080
265
16
61
163
455
57
139
264
92
27
250
47
60
249
247
241
179
NA
14
425
277
144
57
185
390
441
69
68
385
227
36
36
47
237
136
149
115
186
83
HAWAII (HI)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
6
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
3833
County
Total
OHU
Hawaii
Honolulu
Kalawao
Kauai
Maui
52985
286450
115
20183
43507
84
OHULP
1990
0.95
Percent of
OHULP
1990
3365
Rural
OHULP
2000
0.94
1634
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
4.55
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65 years
in OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
1450
1760
0
178
445
2.74
0.61
0.00
0.88
1.02
5.53
2.67
0.00
1.86
3.98
0.97
0.47
NA
0.34
0.88
7.52
1.70
0.00
2.25
3.99
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1253
3.19
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below poverty
level in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
13.54
12.63
0.00
3.84
16.84
3069
5083
NA
546
1148
IDAHO (ID)
Ranking
2000
25
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
2720
Idaho (ID)
County
Ada
Adams
Bannock
Bear Lake
Benewah
Bingham
Blaine
Boise
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Total
OHU
113408
1421
27192
2259
3580
13317
7780
2616
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
465
17
81
22
99
47
12
48
0.58
OHULP
1990
2246
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.62
Rural
OHULP
2000
1581
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.41
0.49
0.23
1.20
1.20
NA
0.30
0.91
NA
0.97
1.02
0.00
2.77
4.13
1.92
0.35
0.43
NA
0.15
0.08
0.00
1.83
1.83
NA
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.03
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
0.90
0.00
0.69
0.00
6.69
0.45
1.75
5.92
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1741
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
2.31
0.00
3.66
0.00
9.71
0.88
0.00
5.92
1.19
Total
population
in OHULP
1129
40
164
48
208
120
10
89
85
Idaho (ID)
County
Bonner
Bonneville
Boundary
Butte
Camas
Canyon
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Clearwater
Custer
Elmore
Franklin
Fremont
Gem
Gooding
Idaho
Jefferson
Jerome
Kootenai
Latah
Lemhi
Lewis
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
Nez Perce
Oneida
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Shoshone
Teton
Twin Falls
Valley
Washington
86
Total
OHU
14693
28753
3707
1089
396
45018
2560
7060
340
3456
1770
9092
3476
3885
5539
5046
6084
5901
6298
41308
13059
3275
1554
1447
7129
6973
15286
1430
3710
7371
2560
5906
2078
23853
3208
3762
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
454
123
91
3
4
163
14
43
1
34
23
30
15
44
23
12
88
35
35
155
88
16
2
5
22
56
40
6
28
60
7
36
20
130
12
11
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
3.09
3.92
1.21
0.43
0.61
0.10
2.45
3.46
1.59
0.28
0.28
NA
1.01
1.01
0.00
0.36
0.49
0.25
0.55
0.54
NA
0.61
0.67
1.50
0.29
0.29
0.00
0.98
1.44
NA
1.30
1.30
NA
0.33
1.23
1.86
0.43
0.13
0.00
1.13
1.23
NA
0.42
0.20
0.63
0.24
0.33
0.00
1.45
1.84
0.69
0.59
0.66
0.57
0.56
0.41
0.50
0.38
0.56
0.23
0.67
0.92
1.25
0.49
0.41
0.54
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.35
0.35
NA
0.31
0.17
0.00
0.80
0.90
0.89
0.26
0.69
0.17
0.42
0.42
0.00
0.75
0.68
NA
0.81
1.35
1.58
0.27
0.63
0.00
0.61
0.76
0.62
0.96
0.96
NA
0.55
0.67
0.75
0.37
0.37
NA
0.29
0.24
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
8.52
1.46
7.85
0.00
5.00
0.77
2.29
2.00
0.00
1.16
1.56
0.34
0.00
5.80
0.65
0.00
2.03
1.93
1.24
0.59
0.86
1.20
0.00
1.76
0.00
1.68
0.68
0.00
2.57
0.00
0.52
1.48
1.44
0.85
0.97
0.00
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
11.23
2.24
13.11
0.00
5.00
1.16
0.00
5.34
0.00
0.75
1.56
1.01
0.00
5.67
1.87
0.00
2.55
1.67
0.00
1.01
3.50
2.56
0.00
1.76
0.00
2.48
4.80
0.00
2.18
0.00
1.47
2.08
1.44
1.39
0.97
0.00
Total
population
in OHULP
982
351
158
NA
13
403
22
174
NA
86
39
81
30
155
66
21
149
145
111
362
158
32
NA
32
53
164
64
NA
155
146
22
52
22
312
36
20
ILLINOIS (IL)
Ranking
2000
34
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Adams
Alexander
Bond
Boone
Brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
23959
Illinois (IL)
County
Total
OHU
26860
3808
6155
14597
2108
14182
2046
6794
5347
0.52
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
107
57
35
32
30
19
39
24
22
OHULP
1990
21572
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.51
Rural
OHULP
2000
2655
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.40
1.50
0.57
0.22
1.42
0.13
1.91
0.35
0.41
0.53
1.52
0.68
0.35
2.61
0.15
1.91
0.46
0.46
0.44
1.32
0.50
0.00
1.22
0.51
1.74
0.64
0.71
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.47
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
5331
0.84
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.22
1.25
1.09
0.91
2.83
0.40
8.56
0.00
0.00
1.71
0.66
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.68
8.56
0.00
0.00
181
147
100
70
44
64
63
72
39
87
Illinois (IL)
County
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Cook
Crawford
Cumberland
DeKalb
De Witt
Douglas
DuPage
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Jo Daviess
Johnson
Kane
Kankakee
Kendall
Knox
Lake
La Salle
Lawrence
Lee
Livingston
Logan
McDonough
McHenry
McLean
Macon
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
88
Total
OHU
70597
13921
6971
5839
12754
21043
1974181
7842
4368
31674
6770
7574
325601
7874
2905
13001
8146
5639
16408
14877
2726
5757
14293
3462
8069
1987
3365
20056
12220
24215
3930
15374
8096
9218
4183
133901
38182
18798
22056
216297
43417
6309
13253
14374
11113
12360
89403
56746
46561
19253
101953
16619
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
214
64
45
24
20
90
14546
14
35
106
22
24
968
60
6
89
43
16
116
88
17
20
34
20
33
42
18
44
35
134
13
107
42
23
47
704
147
47
60
775
134
41
14
39
27
66
183
106
148
65
376
82
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.30
0.46
0.65
0.41
0.16
0.43
0.74
0.18
0.80
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.76
0.21
0.68
0.53
0.28
0.71
0.59
0.62
0.35
0.24
0.58
0.41
2.11
0.53
0.22
0.29
0.55
0.33
0.70
0.52
0.25
1.12
0.53
0.38
0.25
0.27
0.36
0.31
0.65
0.11
0.27
0.24
0.53
0.20
0.19
0.32
0.34
0.37
0.49
0.54
0.23
0.82
0.63
0.04
0.39
0.00
0.29
0.80
0.14
0.41
0.37
0.00
0.77
0.21
0.95
0.69
0.69
0.89
0.53
0.62
0.33
0.21
0.90
0.58
2.11
0.45
0.22
0.28
0.59
0.51
0.94
0.42
0.30
1.13
0.25
0.59
0.00
0.58
0.08
0.30
0.93
0.13
0.54
0.28
0.75
0.24
0.18
0.37
0.55
0.29
0.87
0.18
0.74
1.31
0.32
0.23
0.55
0.46
0.56
1.02
0.22
0.40
0.27
0.28
1.53
NA
0.86
0.53
0.84
0.67
0.35
NA
NA
0.44
1.02
0.62
2.80
0.54
0.28
0.27
0.36
1.12
1.63
0.35
0.65
1.36
0.31
0.50
0.72
0.30
0.25
0.29
0.68
NA
0.35
NA
NA
0.25
0.29
0.20
0.33
0.43
0.67
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.42
0.28
0.00
1.41
0.00
0.29
1.87
0.81
4.04
0.38
0.35
0.55
0.44
1.09
0.70
1.74
1.93
1.19
1.12
1.20
0.70
0.26
0.24
2.51
2.22
3.67
2.44
0.00
0.49
0.98
3.52
2.39
1.79
0.28
2.95
1.31
1.14
0.00
0.43
1.36
0.50
1.05
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.79
1.61
0.26
0.72
0.52
0.69
0.70
0.00
0.83
0.00
2.21
0.00
1.51
0.00
1.41
4.04
0.29
1.02
0.78
0.00
2.63
0.70
2.26
2.22
3.13
1.43
1.54
0.70
0.46
0.80
4.90
3.11
3.67
2.45
0.00
0.83
2.48
6.10
4.22
1.63
0.41
2.97
0.00
2.04
0.00
0.66
2.17
1.03
0.56
0.86
0.00
0.00
1.66
4.59
1.62
1.98
0.99
1.73
2.16
457
132
83
50
50
146
44315
29
57
461
43
35
2990
98
13
174
55
32
206
159
21
37
70
30
51
116
34
80
96
224
18
202
102
36
117
2383
301
159
105
3054
364
121
27
74
66
357
427
263
295
151
1008
157
Illinois (IL)
County
Total
OHU
Marshall
Mason
Massac
Menard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Moultrie
Ogle
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
Pike
Pope
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Richland
Rock Island
St. Clair
Saline
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Stephenson
Tazewell
Union
Vermilion
Wabash
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Whiteside
Will
Williamson
Winnebago
Woodford
5225
6389
6261
4873
6624
10275
11507
14039
5405
19278
72733
8504
6475
6876
1769
2893
2415
12084
6660
60712
96810
10992
78722
2975
2222
9056
2525
19785
50327
7290
33406
5192
7166
5848
7143
6534
23684
167542
25358
107980
12797
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
25
37
58
12
16
42
55
70
17
121
221
45
9
59
11
24
2
73
26
215
329
80
228
27
0
40
20
72
75
47
134
30
25
21
45
20
140
318
112
430
30
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.48
0.58
0.93
0.25
0.24
0.41
0.48
0.50
0.31
0.63
0.30
0.53
0.14
0.86
0.62
0.83
0.08
0.60
0.39
0.35
0.34
0.73
0.29
0.91
0.00
0.44
0.79
0.36
0.15
0.64
0.40
0.58
0.35
0.36
0.63
0.31
0.59
0.19
0.44
0.40
0.23
0.40
0.54
0.73
0.34
0.31
0.37
0.31
1.01
0.31
0.60
0.24
0.74
0.21
0.98
0.62
0.83
0.08
1.11
0.63
0.03
0.14
0.98
0.21
0.95
0.00
0.57
0.79
0.38
0.10
0.98
0.42
1.18
0.50
0.46
0.70
0.32
0.49
0.31
0.53
0.09
0.28
0.72
0.78
1.05
0.00
0.27
0.36
0.83
0.61
NA
0.70
0.27
0.96
NA
0.78
1.24
2.20
0.00
1.01
0.88
0.33
0.35
0.20
0.26
2.33
0.00
0.79
1.65
0.28
0.04
0.42
0.42
1.22
NA
0.68
0.65
0.58
0.75
0.19
0.51
0.34
0.28
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
6.02
2.16
3.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.16
1.36
1.16
1.97
1.18
0.25
0.00
1.91
0.77
1.51
0.00
1.95
0.34
0.83
1.07
1.80
0.60
5.69
0.00
1.89
4.13
0.00
0.42
1.26
1.29
1.22
0.31
2.02
0.63
1.08
1.29
0.20
0.81
1.38
0.53
6.22
2.27
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.63
3.51
2.09
0.00
2.16
0.71
0.00
1.28
0.77
1.51
0.00
4.85
1.28
0.00
0.65
2.39
0.89
3.93
0.00
2.64
4.13
0.00
0.00
2.12
2.22
4.55
0.88
2.59
1.01
0.47
1.93
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.79
34
80
105
34
18
131
115
143
21
279
508
112
18
128
11
42
NA
131
37
454
915
136
389
83
0
66
39
163
162
107
299
70
41
35
93
29
246
806
206
962
57
89
INDIANA (IN)
Ranking
2000
43
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
10599
Indiana (IN)
County
Total
OHU
Adams
Allen
Bartholomew
Benton
Blackford
Boone
Brown
Carroll
Cass
11818
128745
27936
3558
5690
17081
5897
7718
15715
90
0.45
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
675
691
99
42
22
62
50
69
72
OHULP
1990
11288
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.55
Rural
OHULP
2000
4602
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
5.71
0.54
0.35
1.18
0.39
0.36
0.85
0.89
0.46
11.31
2.46
0.67
1.18
0.33
0.28
0.85
1.13
0.69
2.96
0.38
0.68
1.57
0.34
0.48
0.76
0.87
0.90
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.71
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
7000
1.02
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
20.88
0.78
0.76
11.44
1.50
0.21
3.90
3.87
0.00
45.43
10.17
3.85
11.44
0.88
0.51
3.90
5.41
0.00
4027
2625
186
82
20
134
178
287
134
Indiana (IN)
County
Total
OHU
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
Daviess
Dearborn
Decatur
DeKalb
DE
Dubois
Elkhart
Fayette
Floyd
Fountain
Franklin
Fulton
Gibson
Grant
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Hendricks
Henry
Howard
Huntington
Jackson
Jasper
Jay
Jefferson
Jennings
Johnson
Knox
Kosciusko
LaGrange
Lake
LaPorte
Lawrence
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Martin
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Newton
Noble
Ohio
Orange
Owen
Parke
38751
10216
12545
4181
10894
16832
9389
15134
47131
14813
66154
10199
27511
7041
7868
8082
12847
28319
13372
65933
20718
12917
37275
19486
34800
14242
16052
10686
8405
12148
10134
42434
15552
27283
11225
181633
41050
18535
53052
352164
16519
4183
13716
46898
14595
24437
5340
16696
2201
7621
8282
6415
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
146
46
54
59
84
59
44
91
118
52
227
73
124
61
69
38
33
95
91
197
17
67
105
54
94
15
73
8
114
69
57
101
49
99
102
775
186
108
170
1366
59
49
67
235
69
109
12
106
9
136
96
68
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.38
0.45
0.43
1.41
0.77
0.35
0.47
0.60
0.25
0.35
0.34
0.72
0.45
0.87
0.88
0.47
0.26
0.34
0.68
0.30
0.08
0.52
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.11
0.45
0.07
1.36
0.57
0.56
0.24
0.32
0.36
0.91
0.43
0.45
0.58
0.32
0.39
0.36
1.17
0.49
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.22
0.63
0.41
1.78
1.16
1.06
0.78
0.44
0.37
1.41
0.93
0.58
0.47
0.88
0.24
0.43
0.36
1.10
0.58
1.11
1.05
0.76
0.38
0.25
0.94
0.65
0.04
0.53
0.23
0.14
0.15
0.07
0.56
0.03
1.99
0.58
0.91
0.57
0.34
0.38
0.94
0.20
0.51
0.60
0.49
0.00
0.32
1.38
0.46
0.62
0.57
0.51
0.23
0.49
0.41
2.04
1.16
1.35
0.28
0.27
NA
2.22
0.33
0.74
0.72
0.42
0.22
0.50
0.33
0.00
0.48
1.72
1.20
0.76
0.19
0.44
0.58
0.45
0.00
1.63
0.53
0.21
0.35
0.26
0.34
0.00
0.97
0.26
0.83
0.25
0.66
0.64
1.05
0.39
0.41
0.52
0.66
0.41
0.14
0.63
0.38
0.64
0.68
0.49
0.57
0.69
0.96
1.21
0.27
1.48
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.31
1.07
0.00
3.61
1.93
1.38
1.21
2.51
0.33
0.89
1.07
1.42
1.04
1.79
2.20
1.31
0.80
0.43
0.39
0.94
0.00
1.73
0.00
0.33
0.64
0.35
0.14
0.70
4.39
1.32
0.65
0.00
0.64
0.00
4.51
1.19
1.39
1.32
0.61
0.87
0.00
4.73
1.03
1.37
0.76
0.99
0.63
1.16
0.00
5.95
3.07
5.28
5.23
0.00
0.00
3.61
3.80
3.28
0.56
4.56
0.00
2.34
1.62
3.93
0.00
2.86
3.00
2.46
0.48
0.40
0.79
4.26
0.00
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.42
0.00
8.48
3.20
1.55
0.00
0.92
0.00
5.15
0.00
2.13
2.29
0.44
0.00
0.00
7.42
0.56
3.04
1.97
2.19
0.63
0.33
0.00
7.58
3.07
7.13
294
96
95
109
232
139
67
219
259
96
564
207
280
165
135
107
92
189
171
499
36
119
183
116
162
25
193
21
591
139
75
259
99
282
349
2129
376
231
336
3000
143
119
173
401
201
260
16
213
7
437
249
205
91
Indiana (IN)
County
Total
OHU
Perry
Pike
Porter
Posey
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Ripley
Rush
St. Joseph
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Starke
Steuben
Sullivan
Switzerland
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Union
Vanderburgh
Vermillion
Vigo
Wabash
Warren
Warrick
Washington
Wayne
Wells
White
Whitley
7270
5119
54649
10205
5170
12374
10937
9842
6923
100743
8832
16561
7569
8740
12738
7819
3435
55226
6469
2793
70623
6762
40998
13215
3219
19438
10264
28469
10402
9727
11711
92
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
48
25
182
50
37
55
67
35
54
345
52
76
18
59
54
66
69
161
13
18
198
48
227
44
7
29
141
117
17
25
75
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.66
0.49
0.33
0.49
0.72
0.44
0.61
0.36
0.78
0.34
0.59
0.46
0.24
0.68
0.42
0.84
2.01
0.29
0.20
0.64
0.28
0.71
0.55
0.33
0.22
0.15
1.37
0.41
0.16
0.26
0.64
0.97
0.52
0.17
0.73
0.66
0.35
0.43
0.38
0.72
0.41
0.52
0.63
0.24
0.40
0.54
0.89
2.01
0.30
0.33
0.64
0.14
0.75
0.84
0.21
0.22
0.41
1.84
0.24
0.34
0.10
0.69
1.15
0.38
0.21
0.90
0.92
0.46
NA
0.73
0.72
0.18
0.58
0.46
0.53
0.76
NA
0.38
NA
0.67
0.00
1.79
0.27
0.70
0.78
0.00
0.00
0.27
1.11
0.35
0.23
NA
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.80
1.51
0.76
0.90
0.00
0.19
1.52
1.74
0.99
0.94
2.72
1.22
0.76
0.95
1.85
1.21
10.14
0.36
0.00
2.58
0.26
3.53
0.57
0.73
0.00
0.74
5.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
2.24
2.33
2.24
0.00
1.78
0.00
0.30
0.88
1.30
0.00
0.00
5.90
2.73
0.76
1.57
1.83
0.00
10.14
0.00
0.00
2.58
0.00
2.67
0.73
2.35
0.00
2.53
7.01
1.77
0.00
0.00
3.88
86
52
445
89
104
109
129
86
129
866
93
187
23
133
256
206
242
302
29
29
420
95
496
94
21
49
541
163
67
95
215
IOWA (IA)
Ranking
2000
48
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
4832
Iowa (IA)
County
Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Black Hawk
Boone
Bremer
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Total
OHU
3398
1867
5722
5779
2773
9746
49683
10374
8860
7933
7499
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.42
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
13
4
20
49
5
74
146
19
11
164
27
OHULP
1990
5333
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.50
Rural
OHULP
2000
2508
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.38
0.21
0.35
0.85
0.18
0.76
0.29
0.18
0.12
2.07
0.36
0.38
0.21
0.33
1.12
0.18
0.62
0.12
0.12
0.18
2.97
0.37
1.39
0.00
0.33
0.98
NA
0.41
0.42
0.32
NA
1.05
NA
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.57
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
3677
0.90
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.63
1.09
2.19
2.08
0.00
0.00
0.74
1.03
0.00
8.36
0.77
0.63
1.09
1.49
2.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.00
11.50
1.59
27
NA
45
69
14
164
414
39
21
989
48
93
Iowa (IA)
County
Butler
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Cedar
Cerro Gordo
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Clinton
Crawford
Dallas
Davis
Decatur
Delaware
Des Moines
Dickinson
Dubuque
Emmet
Fayette
Floyd
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Howard
Humboldt
Ida
Iowa
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Jones
Keokuk
Kossuth
Lee
Linn
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
94
Total
OHU
6175
4513
8486
6120
7147
19374
5378
5192
3584
7259
7375
20105
6441
15584
3207
3337
6834
17270
7103
33690
4450
8778
6828
4356
3199
4205
4984
4641
6692
4795
7628
6115
7626
3974
4295
3213
6163
8078
14689
6649
44080
7560
4586
6974
15161
76753
4519
3811
4428
5326
8880
12017
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
29
22
33
26
56
45
47
14
20
38
47
115
19
78
59
46
28
35
28
142
2
24
37
12
30
26
20
7
10
14
26
30
32
60
25
9
20
63
52
46
257
21
34
29
59
227
47
47
19
25
44
62
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.47
0.49
0.39
0.42
0.78
0.23
0.87
0.27
0.56
0.52
0.64
0.57
0.29
0.50
1.84
1.38
0.41
0.20
0.39
0.42
0.04
0.27
0.54
0.28
0.94
0.62
0.40
0.15
0.15
0.29
0.34
0.49
0.42
1.51
0.58
0.28
0.32
0.78
0.35
0.69
0.58
0.28
0.74
0.42
0.39
0.30
1.04
1.23
0.43
0.47
0.50
0.52
0.47
0.49
0.48
0.66
0.77
0.32
0.19
0.37
1.10
0.51
0.67
0.43
0.41
0.70
1.84
1.38
0.61
0.26
0.24
0.27
0.11
0.30
0.88
0.43
0.94
0.34
0.40
0.15
0.30
0.40
0.47
0.62
0.69
2.21
0.34
0.28
0.32
1.54
0.25
0.68
0.77
0.48
0.74
0.38
0.51
0.30
1.04
2.12
0.43
0.47
0.85
0.74
0.77
NA
0.71
0.59
0.82
0.18
NA
0.60
0.49
0.00
0.74
0.53
0.67
0.56
1.65
0.50
NA
0.53
NA
0.51
NA
0.80
0.72
NA
1.53
0.78
0.36
0.33
0.29
0.45
0.75
0.36
0.66
0.72
0.39
NA
0.50
0.34
0.62
0.59
0.19
NA
0.74
0.72
0.62
0.42
1.99
NA
1.65
0.52
1.01
0.72
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.68
0.00
0.81
2.17
4.79
0.55
2.44
0.00
1.02
1.48
1.76
1.22
1.76
0.00
5.79
1.13
0.48
0.41
0.98
0.72
0.00
0.66
2.67
1.18
5.19
1.51
0.00
0.24
0.89
0.00
1.01
1.09
2.60
8.17
0.00
2.31
0.00
0.99
0.39
0.90
1.25
0.91
0.84
1.88
0.76
0.87
4.69
3.25
0.54
2.11
1.30
2.39
1.68
0.00
0.00
3.18
6.05
0.40
0.00
0.00
1.92
1.25
1.88
0.97
1.98
0.00
5.79
1.13
0.84
0.00
1.94
0.00
0.00
1.03
4.12
2.26
5.19
0.88
0.00
0.24
2.13
0.00
1.55
1.31
4.88
8.80
0.00
2.31
0.00
2.18
0.41
4.17
2.36
1.53
0.84
1.60
0.00
0.00
4.69
7.77
0.54
4.27
2.14
4.36
68
33
82
43
106
70
98
29
49
138
165
254
54
157
144
177
112
92
51
194
NA
39
75
35
50
38
35
16
10
27
43
43
54
148
42
18
28
170
96
92
479
42
60
95
92
413
115
247
52
38
112
143
Iowa (IA)
County
Total
OHU
Marshall
Mills
Mitchell
Monona
Monroe
Montgomery
Muscatine
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Plymouth
Pocahontas
Polk
Pottawattamie
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Scott
Shelby
Sioux
Story
Tama
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Wapello
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Winnebago
Winneshiek
Woodbury
Worth
Wright
15338
5324
4294
4211
3228
4886
15847
6001
2778
6708
4119
9372
3617
149112
33844
7398
2245
4746
62334
5173
10693
29383
7018
2824
5242
3181
14784
14708
8056
2821
15878
4749
7734
39151
3278
5940
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
102
8
54
36
4
33
63
23
5
25
3
23
15
486
116
36
35
11
164
26
30
68
45
35
18
68
51
33
25
30
47
6
76
133
3
21
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.67
0.15
1.26
0.85
0.12
0.68
0.40
0.38
0.18
0.37
0.07
0.25
0.41
0.33
0.34
0.49
1.56
0.23
0.26
0.50
0.28
0.23
0.64
1.24
0.34
2.14
0.34
0.22
0.31
1.06
0.30
0.13
0.98
0.34
0.09
0.35
0.86
0.23
1.92
0.87
0.24
0.45
0.38
0.34
0.30
0.65
0.11
0.28
0.41
0.18
0.41
0.61
1.56
0.23
0.35
0.49
0.50
0.29
0.89
1.24
0.92
2.14
0.37
0.36
0.36
1.06
0.21
0.00
1.48
0.48
0.09
0.60
0.70
NA
1.10
1.31
0.00
0.37
0.22
0.56
0.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.32
0.21
0.40
3.15
0.00
0.17
0.49
0.83
0.14
1.24
2.44
NA
1.45
0.27
0.24
0.43
1.36
0.19
NA
1.71
0.26
0.00
0.25
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.18
0.73
7.11
1.32
0.00
1.14
1.85
0.00
2.29
0.24
0.00
0.00
2.51
1.08
0.59
0.43
7.85
1.43
0.76
0.00
0.27
0.40
0.87
2.87
0.97
9.47
1.05
0.00
2.24
4.60
0.99
1.57
3.14
1.00
0.00
1.56
7.06
1.18
11.07
1.78
0.00
0.00
3.18
0.00
3.31
1.32
0.00
0.00
2.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.85
1.43
2.54
0.00
0.47
0.00
1.28
2.87
2.93
9.47
0.52
0.00
1.99
4.60
0.57
0.00
5.16
1.37
0.00
2.66
229
8
244
45
NA
52
173
32
7
62
17
51
30
1289
206
68
99
21
279
70
71
202
106
84
31
276
110
69
142
50
77
NA
151
448
NA
59
95
KANSAS (KS)
Ranking
2000
50
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
4057
Kansas (KS)
County
Total
OHU
Allen
Anderson
Atchison
Barber
Barton
Bourbon
Brown
Butler
Chase
Chautauqua
Cherokee
5775
3221
6275
2235
11393
6161
4318
21527
1246
1796
8875
96
OHULP
1990
0.39
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
37
45
24
10
57
36
16
61
8
20
49
3695
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.39
Rural
OHULP
2000
1589
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.64
1.40
0.38
0.45
0.50
0.58
0.37
0.28
0.64
1.11
0.55
0.60
2.55
0.30
0.45
0.72
0.98
0.32
0.44
0.64
1.11
0.81
1.22
0.99
0.33
NA
0.80
0.47
0.00
0.28
NA
1.17
0.28
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.55
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
2462
0.87
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.10
2.15
0.12
0.84
1.67
0.94
2.59
0.00
2.46
1.72
2.32
3.13
4.09
0.63
0.84
1.31
0.00
2.02
0.00
2.46
1.72
3.72
51
92
57
24
169
53
26
179
10
49
84
Kansas (KS)
County
Cheyenne
Clark
Clay
Cloud
Coffey
Comanche
Cowley
Crawford
Decatur
Dickinson
Doniphan
Douglas
Edwards
Elk
Ellis
Ellsworth
Finney
Ford
Franklin
Geary
Gove
Graham
Grant
Gray
Greeley
Greenwood
Hamilton
Harper
Harvey
Haskell
Hodgeman
Jackson
Jefferson
Jewell
Johnson
Kearny
Kingman
KIA
Labette
Lane
Leavenworth
Lincoln
Linn
Logan
Lyon
McPherson
Marion
Marshall
Meade
Miami
Mitchell
Montgomery
Total
OHU
1360
979
3617
4163
3489
872
14039
15504
1494
7903
3173
38486
1455
1412
11193
2481
12948
10852
9452
10458
1245
1263
2742
2045
602
3234
1054
2773
12581
1481
796
4727
6830
1695
174570
1542
3371
1365
9194
910
23071
1529
3807
1243
13691
11205
5114
4458
1728
10365
2850
14903
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
11
4
2
17
28
1
69
95
2
38
17
109
4
12
20
9
86
61
71
39
4
8
0
6
2
31
12
6
24
15
12
21
35
2
471
11
21
4
34
4
94
4
28
0
94
24
24
6
6
91
13
45
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.81
0.41
0.06
0.41
0.80
0.11
0.49
0.61
0.13
0.48
0.54
0.28
0.27
0.85
0.18
0.36
0.66
0.56
0.75
0.37
0.32
0.63
0.00
0.29
0.33
0.96
1.14
0.22
0.19
1.01
1.51
0.44
0.51
0.12
0.27
0.71
0.62
0.29
0.37
0.44
0.41
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.69
0.21
0.47
0.13
0.35
0.88
0.46
0.30
0.81
0.41
0.12
0.11
1.00
0.11
0.60
0.62
0.13
0.64
0.61
0.40
0.27
0.85
0.44
0.59
0.94
0.85
1.12
0.00
0.32
0.63
0.00
0.29
0.33
1.37
1.14
0.22
0.27
1.01
1.51
0.62
0.51
0.12
0.22
0.71
0.34
0.29
0.74
0.44
0.40
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.46
0.09
0.47
0.19
0.35
1.25
0.96
0.39
NA
NA
NA
0.61
1.58
0.00
0.43
0.43
0.00
0.55
NA
0.37
0.00
NA
0.22
NA
0.67
0.29
0.76
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
0.81
0.00
0.59
0.00
4.93
NA
1.26
0.59
0.00
0.20
NA
0.66
NA
0.77
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.81
0.80
0.29
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
5.11
0.00
0.00
2.08
0.00
0.00
0.75
1.19
1.32
0.00
1.36
0.41
2.65
3.26
0.00
0.94
1.27
1.39
2.03
0.57
0.00
1.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
2.82
0.00
1.06
0.00
3.03
0.50
1.54
0.00
0.62
0.62
0.00
1.31
0.84
2.47
1.33
2.53
2.07
0.00
1.33
0.67
1.17
0.00
1.31
3.47
0.70
1.18
5.11
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
1.97
1.95
1.32
0.00
1.66
7.53
2.65
3.26
0.00
1.59
6.79
3.97
4.36
0.00
0.00
1.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.86
2.82
0.00
4.44
0.00
3.03
0.81
1.54
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
1.31
1.93
2.47
2.20
2.53
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.31
8.16
1.50
0.30
27
NA
NA
14
53
NA
185
174
15
76
23
230
NA
24
36
15
330
227
132
74
NA
12
0
22
NA
59
25
16
83
40
36
39
80
NA
1255
39
32
8
58
NA
226
7
46
0
162
44
37
9
11
197
11
71
97
Kansas (KS)
County
Morris
Morton
Nemaha
Neosho
Ness
Norton
Osage
Osborne
Ottawa
Pawnee
Phillips
Pottawatomie
Pratt
Rawlins
Reno
Republic
Rice
Riley
Rooks
Rush
Russell
Saline
Scott
Sedgwick
Seward
Shawnee
Sheridan
Sherman
Smith
Stafford
Stanton
Stevens
Sumner
Thomas
Trego
Wabaunsee
Wallace
Washington
Wichita
Wilson
Woodson
Wyandotte
98
Total
OHU
2539
1306
3959
6739
1516
2266
6490
1940
2430
2739
2496
6771
3963
1269
25498
2557
4050
22137
2362
1548
3207
21436
2045
176444
7419
68920
1124
2758
1953
2010
858
1988
9888
3226
1412
2633
674
2673
967
4203
1642
59700
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
4
16
23
55
0
12
33
10
16
11
16
8
21
6
147
10
16
60
13
16
22
25
0
568
23
216
18
6
21
2
11
18
39
8
8
32
0
40
7
31
8
251
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.16
1.23
0.58
0.82
0.00
0.53
0.51
0.52
0.66
0.40
0.64
0.12
0.53
0.47
0.58
0.39
0.40
0.27
0.55
1.03
0.69
0.12
0.00
0.32
0.31
0.31
1.60
0.22
1.08
0.10
1.28
0.91
0.39
0.25
0.57
1.22
0.00
1.50
0.72
0.74
0.49
0.42
0.16
1.23
0.58
1.31
0.00
0.65
0.51
0.52
0.66
0.32
1.18
0.15
0.77
0.47
0.34
0.39
0.33
0.09
0.55
1.03
1.01
0.41
0.00
0.21
0.88
0.24
1.60
0.86
1.08
0.10
1.28
1.33
0.46
0.00
0.57
1.22
0.00
1.50
0.72
0.92
0.49
0.39
NA
NA
0.37
0.68
0.00
NA
NA
0.68
1.37
NA
0.68
NA
1.18
NA
0.66
NA
0.66
0.00
0.00
NA
0.78
0.13
0.00
0.23
0.52
0.28
2.10
NA
0.88
0.00
5.63
2.34
0.27
0.00
0.00
1.31
0.00
2.28
0.00
0.59
NA
0.44
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
6.11
0.49
0.98
0.00
1.73
0.33
1.28
1.30
1.34
0.79
0.31
0.49
2.47
1.45
2.37
0.44
0.19
0.00
5.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.56
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
4.60
5.10
0.00
2.80
3.48
1.98
1.06
0.70
0.00
6.11
0.49
3.02
0.00
3.70
0.33
1.28
1.30
5.45
1.61
0.42
2.41
2.47
1.65
2.37
1.23
0.00
0.00
5.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.26
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
2.35
0.00
4.60
5.10
0.00
2.80
3.48
2.96
1.06
4.76
12
25
40
92
0
12
110
9
61
19
29
17
35
10
271
12
37
131
18
19
31
45
0
1460
61
533
24
NA
29
NA
17
31
82
7
40
55
0
82
23
57
NA
763
KENTUCKY (KY)
Ranking
2000
7
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
14947
Kentucky (KY)
County
Adair
Allen
Anderson
Ballard
Barren
Bath
Bell
Boone
Bourbon
Boyd
Boyle
Bracken
Breathitt
Breckinridge
Total
OHU
6747
6910
7320
3395
15346
4445
12004
31258
7681
20010
10574
3228
6170
7324
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.94
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
138
163
43
16
143
93
159
136
20
104
78
61
245
112
OHULP
1990
33623
Percent of
OHULP
1990
2.44
Rural
OHULP
2000
11672
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
2.05
2.36
0.59
0.47
0.93
2.09
1.32
0.44
0.26
0.52
0.74
1.89
3.97
1.53
2.75
2.82
1.25
0.47
1.34
2.09
2.06
0.85
0.40
0.39
1.15
1.89
4.60
1.53
3.29
1.87
0.47
0.65
1.17
2.65
2.39
0.30
NA
0.61
0.54
3.91
4.09
2.77
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.71
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
30921
4.84
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.96
6.43
2.66
0.41
3.50
4.98
2.39
1.55
0.44
1.10
1.58
2.58
8.12
2.66
7.20
9.82
5.85
0.41
6.80
4.98
3.42
6.40
1.33
0.00
4.14
2.58
9.83
2.66
398
574
137
34
600
216
252
308
31
257
204
140
585
267
99
Kentucky (KY)
County
Total
OHU
Bullitt
Butler
Caldwell
Calloway
Campbell
Carlisle
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crittenden
Cumberland
Daviess
Edmonson
Elliott
Estill
Fayette
Fleming
Floyd
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Green
Greenup
Hancock
Hardin
Harlan
Harrison
Hart
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Hopkins
Jackson
Jefferson
Jessamine
Johnson
Kenton
Knott
Knox
Larue
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
22171
5059
5431
13862
34742
2208
3940
10342
6260
24857
13015
8556
4086
3829
2976
36033
4648
2638
6108
108288
5367
16881
19907
3237
2902
5741
8175
14841
9596
4706
14536
3215
34497
13291
7012
6769
18095
5844
2188
18820
5307
287012
13867
9103
59444
6717
12416
5275
20353
5954
2985
4885
100
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
140
51
47
70
96
2
24
180
217
205
55
253
67
58
83
121
48
65
241
358
181
163
147
15
48
76
48
58
115
67
178
47
201
260
64
128
102
98
13
166
188
1086
150
123
245
165
197
86
182
133
95
163
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.63
1.01
0.87
0.50
0.28
0.09
0.61
1.74
3.47
0.82
0.42
2.96
1.64
1.51
2.79
0.34
1.03
2.46
3.95
0.33
3.37
0.97
0.74
0.46
1.65
1.32
0.59
0.39
1.20
1.42
1.22
1.46
0.58
1.96
0.91
1.89
0.56
1.68
0.59
0.88
3.54
0.38
1.08
1.35
0.41
2.46
1.59
1.63
0.89
2.23
3.18
3.34
1.48
1.01
1.39
0.55
1.03
0.09
1.08
2.00
3.47
1.81
0.83
3.48
1.64
2.04
2.79
0.86
1.03
2.46
5.60
1.16
4.27
1.05
1.77
0.75
1.65
1.87
0.75
0.47
1.55
1.42
2.49
1.52
1.21
2.79
1.50
2.05
0.88
1.68
0.59
1.43
3.54
0.84
2.65
1.75
1.67
2.46
2.09
1.97
1.02
2.73
3.18
3.34
0.21
1.02
1.13
0.23
0.38
NA
1.08
1.57
2.41
0.44
0.89
5.03
2.03
0.63
3.59
0.40
1.56
3.29
4.64
0.35
3.49
1.63
1.06
NA
3.51
1.36
0.84
0.16
2.12
1.33
1.05
1.15
0.96
2.07
1.01
2.07
0.41
2.73
1.28
0.91
3.97
0.26
1.59
1.27
0.47
1.75
0.78
2.16
1.16
2.47
2.72
4.04
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.77
1.68
3.41
1.01
1.08
0.00
1.90
3.25
8.17
2.99
0.41
5.60
2.62
3.88
5.61
0.86
2.68
5.80
7.17
0.62
10.28
1.82
2.43
0.59
1.62
3.38
0.22
1.14
4.01
5.23
3.09
0.86
2.54
3.56
3.22
3.23
1.29
5.74
1.41
1.87
6.48
0.86
2.58
3.47
1.21
6.21
2.64
6.06
2.23
4.53
6.36
6.06
6.67
1.68
7.85
1.21
4.18
0.00
5.03
4.00
8.17
9.62
1.88
6.50
2.62
7.30
5.61
3.28
2.68
5.80
10.32
3.15
14.34
2.04
10.90
1.02
1.62
5.61
0.31
1.73
5.79
5.23
5.86
0.98
7.52
4.60
6.73
3.24
3.31
5.74
1.41
3.60
6.48
3.78
7.30
4.51
5.77
6.21
3.61
8.01
2.84
5.54
6.36
6.06
322
124
80
119
229
NA
28
416
550
702
110
489
121
229
205
310
161
141
501
785
419
317
315
17
76
199
108
132
170
154
474
147
527
480
123
296
205
224
36
334
290
2401
444
293
584
372
344
239
409
348
236
302
Kentucky (KY)
County
Letcher
Lewis
Lincoln
Livingston
Logan
Lyon
McCracken
McCreary
McLean
Madison
Magoffin
Marion
Marshall
Martin
Mason
Meade
Menifee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Muhlenberg
Nelson
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Owsley
Pendleton
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Simpson
Spencer
Taylor
Todd
Trigg
Trimble
Union
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Whitley
Total
OHU
10085
5422
9206
3996
10506
2898
27736
6520
3984
27152
5024
6613
12412
4776
6847
9470
2537
8423
4016
4741
8902
4752
12357
13953
2710
8899
14856
4086
1894
5170
11460
27612
5044
22719
866
6544
7927
6941
12110
12104
6415
4251
9233
4569
5215
3137
5710
35365
4121
7913
5560
13780
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
197
248
200
53
116
33
116
161
39
183
74
120
47
89
78
44
64
40
107
97
66
106
80
141
33
167
40
123
88
109
335
293
138
341
27
187
72
94
45
92
45
41
117
84
58
61
30
150
83
262
38
251
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
1.95
4.57
2.17
1.33
1.10
1.14
0.42
2.47
0.98
0.67
1.47
1.81
0.38
1.86
1.14
0.46
2.52
0.47
2.66
2.05
0.74
2.23
0.65
1.01
1.22
1.88
0.27
3.01
4.65
2.11
2.92
1.06
2.74
1.50
3.12
2.86
0.91
1.35
0.37
0.76
0.70
0.96
1.27
1.84
1.11
1.94
0.53
0.42
2.01
3.31
0.68
1.82
1.96
4.57
2.72
1.33
1.23
1.14
0.40
2.47
0.98
1.22
1.47
2.32
0.44
1.86
1.90
0.55
2.52
0.85
2.66
2.05
0.75
2.51
0.79
1.48
1.22
2.45
0.22
3.01
4.65
2.11
3.64
1.00
3.62
2.25
3.12
3.30
1.29
1.35
0.32
0.41
1.72
0.96
2.53
1.84
1.23
2.03
0.37
0.40
2.01
4.97
0.88
2.10
1.84
4.41
3.24
0.78
1.00
NA
0.56
3.01
NA
1.02
2.59
2.55
0.26
3.86
1.47
0.00
2.73
0.72
5.13
2.21
1.32
4.04
0.94
1.34
1.26
0.86
0.24
5.52
6.40
1.48
2.57
0.69
3.01
2.33
7.41
3.50
NA
2.01
NA
0.61
0.63
2.28
2.22
4.88
1.16
1.72
0.74
0.31
1.37
5.00
0.62
2.10
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.74
8.75
4.86
0.42
3.01
1.86
1.14
4.94
1.64
2.55
3.13
4.12
0.57
2.62
3.96
0.38
3.08
1.27
6.82
3.63
1.34
3.84
2.13
2.94
5.07
4.88
1.22
6.30
5.83
7.48
5.83
2.52
6.54
3.30
6.78
4.25
1.90
1.61
0.51
3.28
2.88
3.36
4.28
4.98
3.49
4.09
2.59
1.74
8.04
4.74
2.62
2.83
3.74
8.75
6.12
0.42
4.48
1.86
2.24
4.94
1.64
7.03
3.13
7.31
0.70
2.62
8.53
0.43
3.08
3.04
6.82
3.63
1.52
4.28
2.69
5.02
5.07
6.38
0.00
6.30
5.83
7.48
7.24
2.36
8.41
5.51
6.78
5.19
2.86
1.61
1.65
4.73
8.88
3.36
9.62
4.98
4.87
4.76
0.97
2.87
8.04
7.69
3.97
2.81
342
549
448
114
219
55
241
299
112
439
197
280
110
145
135
94
149
74
284
166
158
229
203
343
45
400
117
327
195
224
872
592
332
692
60
381
137
212
69
214
142
95
172
248
97
126
38
435
189
579
99
553
101
Kentucky (KY)
County
Wolfe
Woodford
102
Total
OHU
2816
8893
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
128
36
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
4.55
0.40
4.55
0.33
6.30
0.60
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
5.75
1.99
5.75
3.35
277
68
LOUISIANA (LA)
Ranking
2000
17
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
10717
Louisiana (LA)
Parish
Total
OHU
Acadia
Allen
Ascension
Assumption
Avoyelles
Beauregard
Bienville
Bossier
Caddo
Calcasieu
Caldwell
Cameron
Catahoula
21142
8102
26691
8239
14736
12104
6108
36628
97974
68613
3941
3592
4082
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.65
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
61
71
146
84
97
40
82
183
723
380
27
32
43
OHULP
1990
14318
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.95
Rural
OHULP
2000
3411
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
of OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.29
0.88
0.55
1.02
0.66
0.33
1.34
0.50
0.74
0.55
0.69
0.89
1.05
0.39
0.67
1.51
0.65
0.60
0.17
1.39
1.11
1.41
0.21
0.69
0.89
1.05
0.64
0.91
0.58
1.41
0.77
0.67
1.32
1.02
0.43
0.62
0.74
1.93
0.76
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.78
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
8335
1.83
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.31
2.19
1.62
3.58
0.84
0.00
3.03
1.61
1.84
1.19
2.23
1.23
2.82
0.63
2.38
5.51
1.99
1.04
0.00
3.39
3.34
4.79
0.37
2.23
1.23
2.82
153
160
482
278
183
79
141
471
1626
760
40
102
108
103
Louisiana (LA)
Parish
Claiborne
Concordia
De Soto
East Baton Rouge
East Carroll
East Feliciana
Evangeline
Franklin
Grant
Iberia
Iberville
Jackson
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Lafayette
Lafourche
La Salle
Lincoln
Livingston
Madison
Morehouse
Natchitoches
Orleans
Ouachita
Plaquemines
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
Red River
Richland
Sabine
St. Bernard
St. Charles
St. Helena
St. James
St. John the Baptist
St. Landry
St. Martin
St. Mary
St. Tammany
Tangipahoa
Tensas
Terrebonne
Union
Vermilion
Vernon
Washington
Webster
West Baton Rouge
West Carroll
West Feliciana
Winn
104
Total
OHU
6270
7521
9691
156365
2969
6699
12736
7754
7073
25381
10674
6086
176234
11480
72372
32057
5291
15235
32630
4469
11382
14263
188251
55216
9021
8397
47120
3414
7490
9221
25123
16422
3873
6992
14283
32328
17164
19317
69253
36558
2416
35997
8857
19832
18260
16467
16501
7663
4458
3645
5930
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
90
43
147
768
14
103
118
54
65
169
148
66
959
61
251
137
38
54
194
76
89
120
1856
332
97
88
206
38
100
71
118
72
97
60
24
285
127
142
190
276
24
181
80
81
67
149
118
35
21
26
23
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
1.44
0.57
1.52
0.49
0.47
1.54
0.93
0.70
0.92
0.67
1.39
1.08
0.54
0.53
0.35
0.43
0.72
0.35
0.59
1.70
0.78
0.84
0.99
0.60
1.08
1.05
0.44
1.11
1.34
0.77
0.47
0.44
2.50
0.86
0.17
0.88
0.74
0.74
0.27
0.75
0.99
0.50
0.90
0.41
0.37
0.90
0.72
0.46
0.47
0.71
0.39
1.58
0.49
1.81
0.27
1.01
1.58
0.90
0.63
0.92
0.39
1.50
0.96
0.00
0.30
0.22
0.54
0.84
0.34
0.77
0.67
0.82
1.05
0.00
0.22
1.81
1.22
0.50
0.74
1.26
0.71
0.00
0.22
2.50
1.35
0.53
0.92
1.00
1.15
0.43
0.83
0.99
0.84
1.04
0.38
0.33
1.05
0.85
0.52
0.47
0.71
0.63
0.96
0.94
2.71
0.38
0.79
1.82
0.94
0.54
1.33
0.35
1.94
1.72
0.43
0.62
0.32
0.34
1.20
0.25
NA
3.15
0.53
0.60
0.78
0.30
NA
0.72
0.11
1.17
1.40
0.53
0.31
0.51
2.33
0.79
0.00
0.99
0.84
0.69
0.28
0.72
NA
0.35
0.70
0.53
0.53
0.91
0.55
0.00
0.46
1.86
1.24
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.23
1.30
3.60
1.01
0.81
3.75
1.23
1.97
3.03
1.77
2.02
2.01
0.82
1.45
0.60
1.16
1.03
0.47
1.41
2.64
2.22
1.39
1.80
1.02
3.76
2.37
0.94
2.13
2.32
2.62
1.95
1.41
5.73
2.28
0.00
1.26
1.12
0.95
0.40
1.85
2.32
1.49
2.73
0.87
0.43
1.90
1.34
0.16
1.89
0.41
0.65
3.81
1.64
4.93
0.00
2.45
4.06
1.43
2.16
3.03
1.28
2.76
2.29
0.00
1.07
0.48
1.08
1.46
0.32
1.38
0.91
2.55
2.05
0.00
0.61
6.87
3.02
1.02
2.29
1.93
2.91
0.00
1.24
5.73
3.87
0.00
2.04
1.89
1.78
0.29
2.42
2.32
2.87
3.44
1.25
0.87
2.46
1.66
0.00
1.89
0.41
1.30
185
135
287
1945
32
251
270
102
128
543
408
160
2700
136
669
307
67
128
423
125
240
277
5192
844
347
226
606
132
281
145
339
182
240
199
64
639
274
412
465
620
43
566
137
165
189
317
289
94
52
94
35
MAINE (ME)
Ranking
2000
8
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
4468
Maine (ME)
County
Total
OHU
Androscoggin
Aroostook
Cumberland
Franklin
Hancock
Kennebec
Knox
Lincoln
Oxford
Penobscot
42028
30356
107989
11806
21864
47683
16608
14158
22314
58096
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.86
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
228
329
369
185
370
332
159
146
294
578
OHULP
1990
7477
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.61
Rural
OHULP
2000
3786
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.54
1.08
0.34
1.57
1.69
0.70
0.96
1.03
1.32
0.99
0.59
1.29
0.59
1.89
1.79
0.91
1.33
1.03
1.60
1.43
0.68
1.23
0.20
0.90
1.13
1.01
0.80
1.21
1.39
1.10
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.26
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
6562
2.63
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.47
2.06
1.01
2.58
5.25
1.28
2.73
3.52
3.13
2.73
1.58
2.70
3.44
3.79
5.56
2.12
4.15
3.52
4.34
4.62
431
618
795
348
673
620
249
256
571
1097
105
Maine (ME)
County
Piscataquis
Sagadahoc
Somerset
Waldo
Washington
York
106
Total
OHU
7278
14117
20496
14726
14118
74563
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
130
118
341
263
299
327
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
1.79
0.84
1.66
1.79
2.12
0.44
1.79
1.11
2.18
1.98
2.32
0.65
0.91
1.02
0.74
1.35
1.69
0.57
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
5.19
2.24
3.52
3.13
4.66
1.22
5.19
2.77
4.88
3.44
5.13
2.12
262
230
700
462
511
710
MARYLAND (MD)
Ranking
2000
42
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
9033
Maryland (MD)
County/City
Total
OHU
Allegany
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
Garrett
29322
178670
299877
25447
11097
52503
31223
41668
12706
70060
11476
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.46
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
162
542
875
137
96
167
140
338
165
260
90
OHULP
1990
10206
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.58
Rural
OHULP
2000
2176
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent
of OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.55
0.30
0.29
0.54
0.87
0.32
0.45
0.81
1.30
0.37
0.78
1.15
0.42
0.55
0.91
1.12
0.33
0.44
1.64
1.74
0.95
0.74
0.58
0.43
0.24
0.93
1.67
0.34
0.34
1.16
1.49
0.92
0.63
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.82
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
5308
1.74
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.58
1.01
0.70
0.76
2.23
2.14
1.08
3.22
1.89
2.08
1.75
3.65
2.96
1.65
1.34
3.20
0.84
1.98
10.41
2.47
6.76
1.66
314
1328
2267
284
230
422
280
875
369
587
177
107
Maryland (MD)
County/City
Total
OHU
Harford
Howard
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's
Queen Anne's
St. Mary's
Somerset
Talbot
Washington
Wicomico
Worcester
Baltimore City
79667
90043
7666
324565
286610
15315
30642
8361
14307
49726
32218
19694
257996
108
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
401
240
73
1122
1268
120
251
80
93
200
79
66
2068
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.50
0.27
0.95
0.35
0.44
0.78
0.82
0.96
0.65
0.40
0.25
0.34
0.80
0.67
0.38
1.04
0.44
0.98
1.23
1.10
1.17
0.79
0.93
0.33
0.83
0.00
0.43
0.39
0.91
0.25
0.37
1.04
1.04
0.76
0.62
0.73
0.40
0.51
0.63
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.56
2.00
1.94
1.00
0.73
4.47
4.73
2.55
1.81
0.67
0.56
0.29
1.46
3.60
5.17
3.02
0.00
2.66
6.02
6.05
5.27
3.40
3.72
2.44
0.73
0.00
1037
585
149
3134
3780
248
1020
141
171
388
150
130
5355
MASSACHUSETTS (MA)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
21
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
15211
Massachusetts (MA)
County
Barnstable
Berkshire
Bristol
Dukes
Essex
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Middlesex
Nantucket
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
Worcester
Total
OHU
94822
56006
205411
6421
275419
29466
175288
55991
561220
3699
248827
168361
278722
283927
0.62
Lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(OHULP)
280
211
1028
20
2479
133
1435
257
2917
0
898
704
3199
1650
OHULP
1990
9096
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.40
Rural
OHULP
2000
734
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.37
Percent
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
OHULP (as
above 65
below
(as % of
% of Rural
years in
poverty level
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
in 1999
0.30
0.38
0.50
0.31
0.90
0.45
0.82
0.46
0.52
0.00
0.36
0.42
1.15
0.58
0.29
0.38
0.28
0.51
0.22
0.60
0.55
0.40
0.26
0.00
0.38
0.48
0.00
0.31
0.34
0.31
0.32
0.00
0.50
0.38
0.47
0.24
0.37
0.00
0.37
0.41
0.97
0.37
0.97
0.86
1.19
0.00
2.38
1.57
2.28
1.03
1.36
0.00
1.13
1.22
2.09
1.81
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
1150
0.35
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
0.92
1.62
0.00
1.70
2.40
1.42
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.57
0.00
1.50
719
412
2831
26
6440
245
3639
567
7286
0
2077
1661
8986
4161
109
MICHIGAN (MI)
Ranking
2000
44
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
16971
Michigan (MI)
County
Total
OHU
Alcona
Alger
Allegan
Alpena
Antrim
Arenac
Baraga
Barry
Bay
Benzie
5132
3785
38165
12818
9222
6710
3353
21035
43930
6500
110
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.45
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
36
40
157
24
64
44
26
69
63
20
OHULP
1990
14687
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.43
Rural
OHULP
2000
4680
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.70
1.06
0.41
0.19
0.69
0.66
0.78
0.33
0.14
0.31
0.71
1.06
0.40
0.29
0.69
0.66
0.78
0.35
0.21
0.31
NA
1.66
0.60
0.18
0.51
0.59
0.71
0.11
0.25
NA
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.50
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
6137
0.64
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.95
1.95
1.36
0.27
2.02
1.95
3.08
0.64
0.43
1.04
2.99
1.95
1.91
0.70
2.02
1.95
3.08
0.88
0.68
1.04
63
69
378
69
117
94
51
121
151
32
Michigan (MI)
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Berrien
Branch
Calhoun
Cass
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Eaton
Emmet
Genesee
Gladwin
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Gratiot
Hillsdale
Houghton
Huron
Ingham
Ionia
Iosco
Iron
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo
63569
16349
54100
19676
10400
10835
13474
12686
23653
5625
15836
11386
40167
12577
169825
10561
7425
30396
14501
17335
13793
14597
108593
20606
11727
5748
22425
58168
93479
256
191
210
79
75
44
66
120
60
27
71
42
72
61
691
122
45
70
47
166
139
76
392
103
54
56
83
193
213
0.40
1.17
0.39
0.40
0.72
0.41
0.49
0.95
0.25
0.48
0.45
0.37
0.18
0.49
0.41
1.16
0.61
0.23
0.32
0.96
1.01
0.52
0.36
0.50
0.46
0.97
0.37
0.33
0.23
0.58
1.49
0.36
0.33
0.77
0.50
0.60
1.15
0.38
0.61
0.85
0.86
0.23
0.57
0.19
1.29
0.69
0.24
0.28
1.19
1.55
0.53
0.16
0.41
0.73
1.33
0.44
0.31
0.23
0.26
1.19
0.36
0.52
0.24
NA
0.36
0.50
0.36
0.31
0.64
0.30
0.28
0.61
0.20
0.64
0.41
0.14
0.57
0.86
1.35
0.78
0.47
0.33
0.49
0.75
0.97
0.31
0.20
0.99
5.07
0.69
2.03
0.94
0.85
1.33
2.09
0.33
1.24
1.35
0.53
0.66
0.95
1.05
4.56
2.82
0.61
1.01
3.75
1.38
1.28
0.82
2.02
0.50
1.32
0.61
1.08
0.39
1.55
7.67
0.35
1.53
1.56
1.23
3.88
2.98
0.67
1.62
2.96
2.15
0.83
0.99
0.46
5.23
3.20
0.00
1.10
5.14
3.13
1.52
0.31
1.12
0.85
2.31
2.08
1.57
1.74
869
965
435
164
142
78
107
394
134
64
141
86
293
99
1782
550
69
140
79
660
241
116
1038
258
88
77
179
452
514
Kalkaska
Kent
Keweenaw
Lake
Lapeer
Leelanau
Lenawee
Livingston
Luce
Mackinac
Macomb
Manistee
Marquette
Mason
Mecosta
Menominee
Midland
Missaukee
Monroe
Montcalm
Montmorency
Muskegon
Newaygo
6428
212890
998
4704
30729
8436
35930
55384
2481
5067
309203
9860
25767
11406
14915
10529
31769
5450
53772
22079
4455
63330
17599
36
939
27
85
101
26
146
129
39
48
753
59
125
56
112
71
65
37
170
137
26
255
99
0.56
0.44
2.71
1.81
0.33
0.31
0.41
0.23
1.57
0.95
0.24
0.60
0.49
0.49
0.75
0.67
0.20
0.68
0.32
0.62
0.58
0.40
0.56
0.60
0.26
2.71
1.81
0.44
0.33
0.26
0.42
2.35
1.12
0.10
0.60
0.98
0.56
0.92
0.79
0.13
0.68
0.34
0.71
0.58
0.29
0.54
0.32
0.46
2.58
1.22
NA
NA
0.60
0.33
0.70
NA
0.19
0.54
0.55
0.18
0.53
0.76
0.32
0.77
0.73
0.75
0.38
0.33
0.62
1.56
1.32
3.70
3.32
0.58
1.26
1.21
2.02
2.69
3.00
0.80
0.75
1.31
1.22
1.79
1.43
0.54
1.23
1.04
2.43
1.64
0.89
1.09
2.04
0.74
3.70
3.32
0.99
1.26
0.89
4.66
3.72
3.82
1.87
1.33
3.96
1.29
3.78
2.62
0.77
1.23
0.77
2.70
1.64
0.76
0.91
58
2404
39
186
252
40
329
272
63
72
1863
109
255
96
521
124
101
73
427
520
59
615
229
111
Michigan (MI)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Oakland
471115
1356
0.29
0.16
0.26
1.08
2.67
3545
Oceana
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Osceola
Oscoda
Otsego
Ottawa
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Saginaw
St. Clair
St. Joseph
Sanilac
Schoolcraft
Shiawassee
Tuscola
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wexford
9778
8842
3456
8861
3921
8995
81662
6155
11250
80430
62072
23381
16871
3606
26896
21454
27982
125327
768440
11824
48
64
60
66
38
24
243
43
35
347
165
129
129
25
94
111
139
483
5404
60
0.49
0.72
1.74
0.74
0.97
0.27
0.30
0.70
0.31
0.43
0.27
0.55
0.76
0.69
0.35
0.52
0.50
0.39
0.70
0.51
0.49
0.72
1.74
0.80
0.97
0.24
0.30
0.88
0.41
0.40
0.34
0.57
0.86
1.08
0.19
0.41
0.56
0.21
0.33
0.68
NA
1.04
1.42
0.79
0.97
NA
0.57
0.51
NA
0.37
0.31
0.73
0.46
0.63
0.49
0.30
0.82
0.29
0.37
0.70
2.02
2.11
5.20
2.27
0.75
0.81
0.82
1.85
0.15
1.28
0.61
1.39
3.02
1.34
0.96
1.89
1.42
0.53
1.84
1.54
2.02
2.11
5.20
2.72
0.75
1.27
1.99
2.14
0.29
2.64
1.58
2.01
3.11
1.90
0.80
1.88
1.97
0.53
2.01
3.33
102
119
108
166
47
28
734
66
66
990
353
389
534
49
155
218
396
1002
15096
115
112
MINNESOTA (MN)
Ranking
2000
37
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
9581
Minnesota (MN)
County
Aitkin
Anoka
Becker
Beltrami
Benton
Big Stone
Blue Earth
Brown
Carlton
Carver
Cass
Total
OHU
6644
106428
11844
14337
13065
2377
21062
10598
12064
24356
10893
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.51
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
157
331
139
153
34
8
71
29
99
76
144
OHULP
1990
9382
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.57
Rural
OHULP
2000
4367
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
2.36
0.31
1.17
1.07
0.26
0.34
0.34
0.27
0.82
0.31
1.32
2.36
0.51
1.35
1.32
0.72
0.34
0.46
0.61
1.24
0.29
1.32
1.64
0.45
0.82
0.28
0.64
0.79
0.60
0.22
0.81
0.58
1.30
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
0.82
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
6022
1.28
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
6.62
1.24
2.67
2.85
1.01
0.72
0.80
0.61
2.78
0.64
3.87
6.62
2.89
4.00
3.68
2.91
0.72
1.11
2.02
3.44
3.02
3.87
294
947
284
370
66
10
170
47
156
139
274
113
Minnesota (MN)
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Chippewa
Chisago
Clay
Clearwater
Cook
Cottonwood
Crow Wing
Dakota
Dodge
Douglas
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Grant
Hennepin
Houston
Hubbard
Isanti
Itasca
Jackson
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
Kittson
Koochiching
Lac qui Parle
Lake
Lake of the Woods
Le Sueur
Lincoln
Lyon
McLeod
Mahnomen
Marshall
Martin
Meeker
Mille Lacs
5361
14454
18670
3330
2350
4917
22250
131151
6420
13276
6652
8228
13356
16983
2534
456129
7633
7435
11236
17789
4556
5759
15936
2167
6040
3316
4646
1903
9630
2653
9715
13449
1969
4101
9067
8590
8638
12
49
31
57
157
10
151
324
16
42
12
183
83
87
17
1936
36
105
67
229
25
99
64
14
48
23
86
28
55
25
49
58
4
30
35
42
82
0.22
0.34
0.17
1.71
6.68
0.20
0.68
0.25
0.25
0.32
0.18
2.22
0.62
0.51
0.67
0.42
0.47
1.41
0.60
1.29
0.55
1.72
0.40
0.65
0.79
0.69
1.85
1.47
0.57
0.94
0.50
0.43
0.20
0.73
0.39
0.49
0.95
0.46
0.37
0.14
1.71
6.68
0.32
0.68
0.25
0.37
0.39
0.23
2.22
0.76
0.47
0.67
0.12
0.64
1.33
0.68
1.49
0.79
1.96
0.47
0.65
1.82
0.69
2.28
1.47
0.67
0.94
0.58
0.42
0.20
0.73
0.56
0.47
1.17
0.29
0.29
0.17
1.30
NA
0.42
0.53
0.14
0.70
0.52
0.49
1.81
0.64
0.69
NA
0.27
0.52
0.67
1.13
0.78
0.55
1.47
0.18
1.27
0.71
0.59
0.70
0.95
0.48
0.87
0.56
0.38
NA
0.90
0.63
0.34
1.00
0.00
0.83
0.40
6.09
6.38
0.20
1.25
0.16
1.15
0.80
0.30
7.94
2.48
2.40
0.84
1.61
1.39
3.63
1.46
3.63
0.00
4.91
1.26
1.65
3.03
3.34
1.69
4.55
2.07
2.22
0.56
1.14
0.00
1.34
0.62
1.26
1.63
0.00
1.49
0.00
6.09
6.38
0.35
1.85
0.86
1.51
1.70
0.39
7.94
4.47
4.03
0.84
0.00
2.29
3.06
2.70
3.79
0.00
5.13
2.68
1.65
8.28
3.34
3.05
4.55
3.74
2.22
1.49
0.00
0.00
1.34
1.39
1.00
1.98
14
113
45
107
297
15
284
807
25
70
22
890
178
188
26
5445
79
251
118
410
39
160
140
22
127
60
145
41
121
47
109
109
NA
59
69
66
185
Morrison
Mower
Murray
Nicollet
Nobles
Norman
Olmsted
Otter Tail
Pennington
Pine
Pipestone
Polk
Pope
Ramsey
Red Lake
11816
15582
3722
10642
7939
3010
47807
22671
5525
9939
4069
12070
4513
201236
1727
84
79
22
43
48
14
160
138
36
187
17
87
26
930
6
0.71
0.51
0.59
0.40
0.60
0.47
0.33
0.61
0.65
1.88
0.42
0.72
0.58
0.46
0.35
0.94
0.48
0.59
0.50
0.43
0.47
0.16
0.70
0.61
2.14
0.27
0.73
0.58
0.00
0.35
0.47
0.47
0.55
NA
0.77
0.86
0.52
0.77
NA
1.52
NA
1.44
0.60
0.29
1.14
1.92
1.07
2.22
0.50
2.72
2.14
1.32
1.71
0.60
4.98
0.00
1.36
1.87
1.55
0.91
3.05
0.49
2.22
2.53
1.04
2.14
0.00
2.37
2.60
5.94
0.00
2.13
1.87
0.00
0.91
184
170
32
93
136
16
334
259
48
367
37
151
42
3148
11
114
Minnesota (MN)
County
Total
OHU
Redwood
Renville
Rice
Rock
Roseau
St. Louis
Scott
Sherburne
Sibley
Stearns
Steele
Stevens
Swift
Todd
Traverse
Wabasha
Wadena
Waseca
Washington
Watonwan
Wilkin
Winona
Wright
Yellow Medicine
6674
6779
18888
3843
6190
82619
30692
21581
5772
47604
12846
3751
4353
9342
1717
8277
5426
7059
71462
4627
2752
18744
31465
4439
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
19
26
52
6
64
748
159
58
31
164
54
18
18
115
4
51
67
21
107
16
22
137
124
11
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.28
0.38
0.28
0.16
1.03
0.91
0.52
0.27
0.54
0.34
0.42
0.48
0.41
1.23
0.23
0.62
1.23
0.30
0.15
0.35
0.80
0.73
0.39
0.25
0.42
0.38
0.36
0.31
1.11
1.70
0.33
0.29
0.54
0.43
0.66
0.51
0.64
1.32
0.23
0.68
1.87
0.28
0.12
0.29
0.53
1.14
0.40
0.31
0.61
0.23
0.40
0.39
1.57
0.61
0.22
0.33
0.71
0.59
0.94
NA
0.44
0.69
NA
0.61
1.31
NA
0.13
NA
0.87
0.42
0.52
0.60
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.85
1.45
0.47
1.62
3.71
1.95
1.68
0.85
2.41
1.39
2.44
0.66
1.40
2.35
0.00
6.23
1.89
1.49
0.35
0.45
0.00
2.92
1.32
0.72
1.33
1.45
1.96
3.75
4.83
4.93
1.23
2.71
2.41
1.06
0.00
1.23
3.57
3.03
0.00
5.00
2.85
3.54
0.00
0.80
0.00
7.12
2.14
0.95
32
38
82
7
127
1279
441
100
38
330
153
35
33
413
8
100
118
24
271
69
31
389
290
28
115
MISSISSIPPI (MS)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
9
9015
Mississippi (MS)
County
Total
OHU
Adams
Alcorn
Amite
Attala
Benton
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
13677
14224
5271
7567
2999
13776
6019
4071
7253
116
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
2000
0.86
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
91
80
73
105
38
209
40
43
64
OHULP
1990
17625
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.93
Rural
OHULP
2000
6109
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.67
0.56
1.38
1.39
1.27
1.52
0.66
1.06
0.88
1.27
0.72
1.38
1.96
1.27
2.59
0.64
1.06
0.92
1.10
0.56
2.17
1.76
0.92
2.17
0.72
2.77
0.70
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
2000
1.15
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
1990
14849
3.18
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.67
1.57
2.81
3.84
2.49
3.34
0.33
1.05
1.92
3.87
2.04
2.81
5.36
2.49
5.09
0.21
1.05
2.43
193
164
186
257
168
590
79
89
136
Mississippi (MS)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Choctaw
Claiborne
Clarke
Clay
Coahoma
Copiah
Covington
DeSoto
Forrest
Franklin
George
Greene
Grenada
Hancock
Harrison
Hinds
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Itawamba
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Jones
Kemper
Lafayette
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Leake
Lee
Leflore
Lincoln
Lowndes
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Montgomery
3686
3685
6978
8152
10553
10142
7126
38792
27183
3211
6742
4148
8820
16897
71538
91030
7314
3765
726
8773
47676
6708
3308
5177
24275
3909
14373
14396
29990
5040
7611
29200
12956
12538
22849
27219
9336
12163
14603
4690
29
85
89
60
170
237
68
264
151
55
64
34
69
57
261
635
118
92
19
36
263
108
75
63
105
81
81
26
238
48
88
123
100
81
78
217
86
204
107
32
0.79
2.31
1.28
0.74
1.61
2.34
0.95
0.68
0.56
1.71
0.95
0.82
0.78
0.34
0.36
0.70
1.61
2.44
2.62
0.41
0.55
1.61
2.27
1.22
0.43
2.07
0.56
0.18
0.79
0.95
1.16
0.42
0.77
0.65
0.34
0.80
0.92
1.68
0.73
0.68
0.79
2.46
1.28
0.80
1.69
2.80
0.95
0.99
0.77
1.71
0.95
0.82
0.32
0.44
0.54
1.19
2.11
2.72
2.62
0.46
0.83
1.61
2.20
1.22
0.50
2.07
0.87
0.27
0.75
0.95
1.37
0.60
0.70
0.91
0.18
1.88
1.24
1.73
0.85
0.71
NA
1.70
0.88
NA
1.46
1.26
0.00
0.64
0.55
1.43
1.88
NA
0.49
0.00
0.19
0.68
2.24
1.32
3.69
0.78
0.55
1.46
1.75
0.79
0.21
2.66
0.50
0.54
0.74
1.02
0.35
0.59
0.90
1.12
0.47
1.44
0.45
1.62
0.75
NA
1.36
3.81
2.07
1.84
2.69
5.15
2.53
2.39
1.11
3.18
3.02
2.20
1.30
0.90
0.69
1.50
2.19
4.05
2.55
1.82
1.10
1.54
2.35
2.70
0.51
3.38
1.37
0.00
1.95
1.58
2.72
1.64
1.59
1.49
0.68
2.72
1.32
4.74
2.00
2.63
1.36
4.55
2.07
3.21
2.76
7.02
2.53
4.29
3.04
3.18
3.02
2.20
0.00
0.80
0.60
3.97
2.72
5.53
2.55
2.17
1.64
1.54
1.85
2.70
0.58
3.38
3.73
0.00
3.80
1.58
3.21
2.04
2.53
3.11
0.71
6.56
1.70
5.05
2.50
2.95
164
203
267
186
432
712
227
690
378
133
160
92
114
115
597
1898
355
361
37
48
617
281
198
206
256
199
186
40
572
105
343
210
268
163
184
576
243
448
253
79
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Oktibbeha
Panola
Pearl River
Perry
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Quitman
Rankin
10694
8221
4470
15945
12232
18078
4420
14792
10097
9821
3565
42089
76
94
75
100
215
105
64
154
106
83
39
301
0.71
1.14
1.68
0.63
1.76
0.58
1.45
1.04
1.05
0.85
1.09
0.72
0.76
1.22
1.96
1.16
1.88
0.52
1.45
0.92
1.17
0.88
1.02
1.18
0.56
1.78
2.00
0.73
2.42
0.99
2.99
0.94
1.48
1.29
0.85
0.62
1.53
2.24
3.07
1.09
2.93
1.43
3.11
2.72
3.71
2.23
1.92
2.31
1.30
2.49
3.91
2.55
3.19
1.49
3.11
2.32
4.18
2.45
2.21
4.20
199
210
256
236
543
226
147
331
313
166
119
903
117
Mississippi (MS)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
10183
2163
10076
201
62
153
1.97
2.87
1.52
2.64
2.87
1.65
2.39
3.16
2.23
3.85
7.02
2.90
5.27
7.02
3.17
511
194
345
Smith
Stone
Sunflower
Tallahatchie
Tate
Tippah
Tishomingo
Tunica
Union
Walthall
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wilkinson
Winston
Yalobusha
Yazoo
6046
4747
9637
5263
8850
8108
7917
3258
9786
5571
18756
22158
7857
3905
3578
7578
5260
9178
85
65
178
112
135
65
53
53
68
123
69
149
80
39
55
96
69
153
1.41
1.37
1.85
2.13
1.53
0.80
0.67
1.63
0.69
2.21
0.37
0.67
1.02
1.00
1.54
1.27
1.31
1.67
1.41
1.74
1.80
2.15
1.98
1.03
0.67
1.29
0.66
2.21
0.34
1.09
1.34
1.00
1.54
1.56
1.63
1.39
0.50
NA
0.99
2.66
1.57
0.93
0.80
1.98
0.32
1.41
0.00
0.23
1.22
0.44
3.37
1.32
1.48
0.93
4.96
3.32
2.71
3.81
3.43
1.98
1.09
3.23
0.99
3.84
0.77
1.22
2.21
4.09
2.92
2.73
1.68
2.77
4.96
5.04
2.12
3.83
4.22
2.76
1.09
2.40
0.89
3.84
0.82
2.38
3.11
4.09
2.92
3.39
2.24
2.76
215
245
686
263
220
97
78
124
152
323
246
556
161
64
251
302
121
539
118
MISSOURI (MO)
Ranking
2000
29
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
11923
Missouri (MO)
County/City
Total
OHU
Adair
Andrew
Atchison
Audrain
Barry
Barton
Bates
Benton
Bollinger
Boone
Buchanan
Butler
Caldwell
Callaway
9669
6273
2722
9844
13398
4895
6511
7420
4576
53094
33557
16718
3523
14416
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.54
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
43
49
6
197
145
13
70
79
56
203
114
114
28
61
OHULP
1990
14263
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.73
Rural
OHULP
2000
6147
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.44
0.78
0.22
2.00
1.08
0.27
1.08
1.06
1.22
0.38
0.34
0.68
0.79
0.42
0.95
1.08
0.22
4.38
1.23
0.26
1.30
1.06
1.22
0.44
0.43
0.84
0.79
0.60
0.54
1.60
NA
0.23
0.81
NA
0.97
0.38
0.82
0.10
0.13
1.05
0.72
0.97
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.94
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
9717
1.65
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.63
0.71
0.00
8.89
3.01
0.28
3.51
3.74
0.83
0.57
0.58
1.44
1.52
2.88
3.02
1.22
0.00
22.94
3.87
0.46
4.22
3.74
0.83
1.41
0.00
2.22
1.52
5.38
123
123
9
919
250
43
191
154
94
500
312
199
61
117
119
Missouri (MO)
County/City
Camden
Cape Girardeau
Carroll
Carter
Cass
Cedar
Chariton
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Cole
Cooper
Crawford
Dade
Dallas
Daviess
DeKalb
Dent
Douglas
Dunklin
Franklin
Gasconade
Gentry
Greene
Grundy
Harrison
Henry
Hickory
Holt
Howard
Howell
Iron
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Knox
Laclede
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lewis
Lincoln
Linn
Livingston
McDonald
Macon
Madison
Maries
Marion
Mercer
Miller
120
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
15779
26980
4169
2378
30168
5685
3469
20425
2966
72558
7152
27040
5932
8858
3202
6030
3178
3528
5982
5201
13411
34945
6171
2747
97859
4382
3658
9133
3911
2237
3836
14762
4197
266294
41412
82
109
62
28
63
45
25
48
30
214
51
81
48
74
30
65
25
20
79
100
94
165
80
28
270
25
54
46
30
23
24
146
73
1121
171
0.52
0.40
1.49
1.18
0.21
0.79
0.72
0.24
1.01
0.29
0.71
0.30
0.81
0.84
0.94
1.08
0.79
0.57
1.32
1.92
0.70
0.47
1.30
1.02
0.28
0.57
1.48
0.50
0.77
1.03
0.63
0.99
1.74
0.42
0.41
0.54
0.74
1.76
1.18
0.21
1.11
0.72
0.37
1.01
0.26
0.71
0.28
1.25
0.85
0.94
1.34
0.79
0.67
1.92
2.52
0.47
0.57
1.57
1.02
0.18
1.09
2.17
0.92
0.77
1.03
0.87
1.13
2.03
0.45
0.35
0.85
0.32
0.52
NA
0.17
0.71
1.62
NA
0.79
0.21
0.53
0.22
1.13
1.26
1.12
2.68
0.51
0.84
1.55
1.72
0.70
0.61
2.33
0.89
0.28
1.09
1.59
NA
0.58
1.32
0.88
0.55
0.71
0.27
0.40
0.25
0.62
2.65
2.71
1.23
1.75
3.69
0.93
2.68
0.79
2.80
0.97
1.34
1.84
1.89
1.60
1.43
1.72
3.66
3.73
1.15
1.41
4.52
2.44
0.63
1.87
2.07
1.10
2.89
1.66
0.45
2.04
4.94
1.01
0.66
0.00
2.12
5.10
2.71
0.75
2.94
3.69
2.00
2.68
0.00
3.95
0.49
2.54
2.35
1.89
2.27
1.43
2.23
4.85
5.36
0.88
2.27
5.48
2.44
1.11
5.51
3.17
2.78
2.89
1.66
0.84
2.62
6.72
1.97
0.92
206
216
185
39
164
89
38
71
97
502
118
117
94
149
37
182
55
45
136
156
192
321
104
60
495
87
153
114
68
33
47
363
132
2793
315
71499
17410
1791
12760
12569
13568
3956
13851
5697
5736
8113
6501
4711
3519
11066
201
92
23
101
40
88
52
97
22
15
147
91
51
53
37
0.28
0.53
1.28
0.79
0.32
0.65
1.31
0.70
0.39
0.26
1.81
1.40
1.08
1.51
0.33
0.28
0.70
1.28
1.12
0.28
0.93
1.31
0.82
0.40
0.73
1.81
1.96
1.32
1.51
0.23
0.41
0.51
0.81
0.61
0.41
0.25
0.60
0.95
NA
NA
0.34
0.92
0.77
1.25
NA
0.78
2.20
2.99
2.17
0.47
1.19
4.35
1.32
1.40
0.98
3.91
5.12
1.73
3.73
1.09
1.09
3.75
2.99
3.90
0.68
2.14
4.35
1.90
0.99
3.69
3.91
8.32
2.78
3.73
0.00
431
226
43
137
108
226
288
181
76
41
378
293
98
85
97
1600
9284
29
21
1.81
0.23
1.81
0.16
1.69
NA
1.79
0.53
1.79
0.78
65
70
Missouri (MO)
County/City
Mississippi
Moniteau
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
New Madrid
Newton
Nodaway
Oregon
Osage
Ozark
Pemiscot
Perry
Pettis
Phelps
Pike
Platte
Polk
Pulaski
Putnam
Ralls
Randolph
Ray
Reynolds
Ripley
St. Charles
St. Clair
Ste. Genevieve
St. Francois
St. Louis
Saline
Schuyler
Scotland
Scott
Shannon
Shelby
Stoddard
Stone
Sullivan
Taney
Texas
Vernon
Warren
WA
Wayne
Webster
Worth
Wright
St. Louis City
Total
OHU
5383
5259
3656
4775
7850
7824
20140
8138
4263
4922
3950
7855
6904
15568
15683
6451
29278
9917
13433
2228
3736
9199
8743
2721
5416
101663
4040
6586
20793
404312
9015
1725
1902
15626
3319
2745
12064
11822
2925
16158
9378
7966
9185
8406
5551
11073
1009
7081
147076
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
17
39
60
68
69
56
147
27
91
34
97
64
34
149
102
142
96
86
62
14
24
36
43
50
102
248
72
53
100
1070
70
13
23
77
110
27
56
45
28
82
172
75
80
144
78
300
6
69
1249
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.32
0.74
1.64
1.42
0.88
0.72
0.73
0.33
2.13
0.69
2.46
0.81
0.49
0.96
0.65
2.20
0.33
0.87
0.46
0.63
0.64
0.39
0.49
1.84
1.88
0.24
1.78
0.80
0.48
0.26
0.78
0.75
1.21
0.49
3.31
0.98
0.46
0.38
0.96
0.51
1.83
0.94
0.87
1.71
1.41
2.71
0.59
0.97
0.85
0.14
1.34
1.64
1.42
0.88
0.55
1.01
0.42
2.57
0.69
2.46
1.13
0.73
1.07
0.87
3.75
0.47
1.17
0.73
0.63
0.66
0.73
0.71
1.84
1.88
0.14
1.78
1.08
0.69
0.20
0.99
0.75
1.21
0.72
3.31
0.98
0.42
0.38
0.96
0.64
1.85
1.54
0.99
2.01
1.41
3.46
0.59
1.15
0.00
0.35
0.84
1.11
2.41
1.18
1.55
0.42
0.37
1.70
2.23
2.41
1.55
NA
0.87
NA
1.52
0.31
0.63
1.55
NA
1.23
0.72
0.71
1.32
1.85
0.24
1.56
1.06
0.85
0.24
0.61
1.69
1.31
0.41
NA
NA
0.82
0.36
0.73
0.61
1.48
1.29
1.17
1.49
1.98
2.44
0.00
0.67
0.50
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.07
2.32
5.83
4.17
1.47
2.04
2.50
1.19
5.27
2.05
5.29
1.19
1.57
1.46
1.41
6.17
1.15
1.93
2.07
0.00
3.10
1.20
0.88
4.63
3.47
1.61
3.19
3.92
1.64
0.65
1.35
0.00
2.38
1.09
6.69
3.45
1.40
1.54
1.14
0.78
4.20
3.35
1.18
3.19
3.70
11.68
1.22
2.41
1.51
0.27
5.08
5.83
4.17
1.47
2.14
3.29
1.69
6.62
2.05
5.29
2.31
1.73
1.27
2.81
12.18
3.51
3.17
3.05
0.00
3.13
3.47
1.70
4.63
3.47
0.00
3.19
5.34
1.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.38
1.66
6.69
3.45
1.02
1.54
1.14
0.24
4.22
6.14
0.35
3.73
3.70
14.91
1.22
2.80
0.00
27
146
247
138
150
97
271
73
223
76
134
166
73
289
248
522
180
231
142
27
62
106
84
86
192
603
151
84
210
2639
168
25
34
172
236
39
131
69
60
213
379
226
176
243
132
1364
11
150
3049
121
MONTANA (MT)
Ranking
2000
13
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
2776
Montana (MT)
County
Total
OHU
Beaverhead
Big Horn
Blaine
Broadwater
Carbon
Carter
Cascade
Chouteau
Custer
Daniels
Dawson
Deer Lodge
3684
3924
2501
1752
4065
543
32547
2226
4768
892
3625
3995
122
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.77
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
50
81
39
10
31
10
221
2
33
0
10
10
OHULP
1990
2357
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.77
Rural
OHULP
2000
1873
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
1.36
2.06
1.56
0.57
0.76
1.84
0.68
0.09
0.69
0.00
0.28
0.25
0.95
2.64
1.56
0.57
0.76
1.84
0.91
0.09
0.78
0.00
0.18
0.44
2.79
1.83
2.55
0.00
1.04
4.89
0.45
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.18
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1678
1.22
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.92
3.11
3.06
4.85
1.06
0.00
1.11
0.00
2.12
0.00
1.83
0.00
0.68
3.81
3.06
4.85
1.06
0.00
1.99
0.00
2.47
0.00
1.23
0.00
70
232
81
21
54
11
324
NA
64
0
36
20
Montana (MT)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Fallon
Fergus
Flathead
Gallatin
Garfield
Glacier
Golden Valley
Granite
Hill
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lake
Lewis and Clark
Liberty
Lincoln
McCone
Madison
Meagher
Mineral
Missoula
Musselshell
Park
Petroleum
Phillips
Pondera
Powder River
Powell
Prairie
Ravalli
Richland
Roosevelt
Rosebud
Sanders
Sheridan
Silver Bow
Stillwater
1140
4860
29588
26323
532
4304
365
1200
6457
3747
951
10192
22850
833
7764
810
2956
803
1584
38439
1878
6828
211
1848
2410
737
2422
537
14289
3878
3581
3307
4273
1741
14432
3234
4
17
301
113
7
53
4
31
25
48
7
80
150
6
277
5
8
11
35
259
32
44
0
5
16
11
9
8
96
22
11
41
93
13
96
27
0.35
0.35
1.02
0.43
1.32
1.23
1.10
2.58
0.39
1.28
0.74
0.78
0.66
0.72
3.57
0.62
0.27
1.37
2.21
0.67
1.70
0.64
0.00
0.27
0.66
1.49
0.37
1.49
0.67
0.57
0.31
1.24
2.18
0.75
0.67
0.83
0.35
0.53
1.69
0.39
1.32
2.73
1.10
2.58
0.89
1.28
0.74
0.95
1.48
0.72
4.23
0.62
0.27
1.37
2.21
1.21
1.70
1.07
0.00
0.27
0.88
1.49
1.06
1.49
0.84
0.36
0.70
1.24
2.18
0.75
0.74
0.83
0.00
NA
0.84
NA
2.98
1.18
NA
NA
0.60
NA
NA
0.55
1.16
NA
1.06
2.14
0.00
NA
1.36
0.27
1.07
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
2.56
1.51
1.88
0.18
NA
1.53
0.73
3.25
0.90
4.67
4.43
3.64
3.91
0.17
0.82
1.23
1.99
1.68
1.49
7.98
1.40
0.52
2.92
7.20
1.90
4.57
0.88
0.00
1.58
1.69
5.83
0.65
2.38
1.59
0.00
0.51
2.93
3.59
3.08
2.39
2.63
1.53
1.74
7.10
0.50
4.67
10.77
3.64
3.91
0.56
0.82
1.23
2.58
5.50
1.49
10.17
1.40
0.52
2.92
7.20
4.95
4.57
2.24
0.00
1.58
3.11
5.83
1.60
2.38
2.17
0.00
1.58
2.93
3.59
3.08
0.00
2.63
NA
28
588
303
12
112
10
52
43
74
21
145
293
10
545
8
15
13
81
493
48
104
0
NA
29
20
39
9
207
80
17
124
148
17
141
32
Sweet Grass
Teton
Toole
Treasure
Valley
Wheatland
Wibaux
Yellowstone
1476
2538
1962
357
3150
853
421
52084
13
49
7
6
17
4
0
218
0.88
1.93
0.36
1.68
0.54
0.47
0.00
0.42
0.88
1.93
0.47
1.68
0.23
0.47
0.00
0.73
NA
0.97
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
2.04
4.48
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
2.04
4.48
1.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.17
25
140
19
14
51
NA
0
319
123
NEBRASKA (NE)
Ranking
2000
52
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
2408
Nebraska (NE)
County
Adams
Antelope
Arthur
Banner
Blaine
Boone
Box Butte
Boyd
Brown
Buffalo
Burt
124
Total
OHU
12141
2953
185
311
238
2454
4780
1014
1530
15930
3155
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.36
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
29
8
2
2
5
10
26
9
6
37
24
OHULP
1990
2253
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.37
Rural
OHULP
2000
985
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.24
0.36
NA
0.27
0.27
NA
1.08
1.08
NA
0.64
0.64
NA
2.10
2.10
NA
0.41
0.41
NA
0.54
1.20
0.64
0.89
0.89
NA
0.39
0.39
NA
0.23
0.20
NA
0.76
0.76
1.63
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.49
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
0.32
1.38
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.68
1.82
4.03
1.18
0.11
0.00
Rural
OHULP
1990
1189
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
2.03
1.38
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.68
3.17
4.03
1.18
0.45
0.00
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
0.60
Total
population
in OHULP
85
8
NA
NA
NA
17
56
17
8
102
35
Nebraska (NE)
County
Butler
Cass
Cedar
Chase
Cherry
Cheyenne
Clay
Colfax
Cuming
Custer
Dakota
Dawes
Dawson
Deuel
Dixon
Dodge
Douglas
Dundy
Fillmore
Franklin
Frontier
Furnas
Gage
Garden
Garfield
Gosper
Grant
Greeley
Hall
Hamilton
Harlan
Hayes
Hitchcock
Holt
Hooker
Howard
Jefferson
Johnson
Total
OHU
3426
9161
3623
1662
2508
4071
2756
3682
3945
4826
7095
3512
8824
908
2413
14433
182194
961
2689
1485
1192
2278
9316
1020
813
863
292
1077
20356
3503
1597
430
1287
4608
335
2546
3527
1887
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
27
40
20
5
13
18
15
10
18
21
24
15
45
8
17
39
648
8
0
7
5
11
23
8
4
0
3
0
90
7
9
11
10
19
0
8
20
12
Kearney
Keith
Keya Paha
Kimball
Knox
Lancaster
Lincoln
Logan
Loup
McPherson
Madison
Merrick
Morrill
Nance
Nemaha
2643
3707
409
1727
3811
99187
14076
316
289
202
13436
3209
2138
1577
3047
18
29
5
6
23
303
30
0
0
0
42
16
15
7
2
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.79
0.81
0.97
0.44
0.51
NA
0.55
0.55
0.80
0.30
0.30
NA
0.52
0.30
0.91
0.44
1.16
0.62
0.54
0.54
0.59
0.27
0.15
0.00
0.46
0.46
0.66
0.44
0.64
0.61
0.34
0.50
NA
0.43
1.05
0.78
0.51
0.59
NA
0.88
0.88
NA
0.70
0.70
0.00
0.27
0.30
0.29
0.36
0.09
0.25
0.83
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.47
NA
0.42
0.42
0.00
0.48
0.48
0.78
0.25
0.40
0.20
0.78
0.78
NA
0.49
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.03
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.76
0.59
0.20
0.38
0.54
0.56
0.56
1.49
2.56
2.56
5.07
0.78
0.78
1.09
0.41
0.26
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.31
NA
0.57
1.23
0.62
0.64
0.64
NA
0.68
0.78
1.22
0.35
0.60
0.31
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.50
0.70
0.44
0.07
1.21
0.57
1.22
0.32
0.60
0.32
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.53
0.70
0.44
0.13
NA
0.52
NA
1.36
1.08
0.21
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
NA
NA
NA
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
2.05
0.41
0.57
0.00
2.74
2.00
1.48
0.26
0.83
0.70
1.06
0.28
1.79
0.00
3.08
0.48
1.07
0.00
0.00
2.62
1.95
1.61
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.04
1.17
0.58
2.74
1.18
0.31
0.00
1.23
0.00
2.00
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
1.06
0.00
0.57
0.00
2.05
4.55
1.48
0.46
1.29
1.03
6.06
1.07
1.01
0.00
3.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.62
1.95
1.61
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.10
2.11
0.58
2.74
1.18
0.45
0.00
1.23
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
0.00
1.77
0.66
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
0.00
1.77
1.32
1.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.29
0.00
2.03
0.00
0.00
Total
population
in OHULP
44
58
30
16
27
32
35
23
52
32
80
52
170
10
33
49
1452
9
0
7
NA
22
41
13
NA
0
NA
0
248
9
17
14
9
26
0
22
44
26
46
47
22
14
50
748
62
0
0
0
105
28
35
16
NA
125
Nebraska (NE)
County
Total
OHU
Nuckolls
Otoe
Pawnee
Perkins
Phelps
Pierce
Platte
Polk
Red Willow
Richardson
Rock
Saline
Sarpy
Saunders
Scotts Bluff
Seward
Sheridan
Sherman
Sioux
Stanton
Thayer
Thomas
Thurston
Valley
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
York
2218
6060
1339
1275
3844
2979
12076
2259
4710
3993
763
5188
43426
7498
14887
6013
2549
1394
605
2297
2541
325
2255
1965
6940
3437
1708
352
5722
126
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
11
22
14
0
12
18
38
8
4
14
2
41
96
33
69
20
8
12
6
19
18
0
14
0
15
10
5
0
7
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.50
0.36
1.05
0.00
0.31
0.60
0.31
0.35
0.08
0.35
0.26
0.79
0.22
0.44
0.46
0.33
0.31
0.86
0.99
0.83
0.71
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.22
0.29
0.29
0.00
0.12
0.50
0.53
1.05
0.00
0.40
0.60
0.56
0.35
0.29
0.66
0.26
0.54
0.22
0.56
0.53
0.54
0.31
0.86
0.99
1.08
0.71
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.36
0.50
0.29
0.00
0.28
NA
0.28
1.66
0.00
0.46
NA
0.47
0.86
NA
0.43
NA
1.36
0.14
NA
0.55
0.31
0.00
1.84
NA
1.47
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
0.36
NA
NA
0.00
0.30
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.13
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.40
0.00
0.91
0.00
2.00
1.09
0.76
0.90
0.19
1.30
3.96
0.00
2.60
4.14
0.00
0.84
0.00
2.05
1.25
0.00
0.00
0.43
1.13
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
1.40
0.00
1.40
0.00
0.82
0.00
1.08
0.57
0.30
1.30
3.96
0.00
3.11
4.14
0.00
0.84
0.00
5.45
2.94
0.00
0.00
1.23
13
61
27
0
25
52
63
13
NA
23
NA
88
286
75
142
41
16
18
19
25
26
0
32
0
21
19
12
0
10
NEVADA (NV)
Ranking
2000
39
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Churchill
Clark
Douglas
Elko
Esmeralda
Eureka
Humboldt
Lander
Lincoln
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
3638
Nevada (NV)
County/City
Total
OHU
8912
512253
16401
15638
455
666
5733
2093
1540
OHULP
1990
0.48
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
33
2178
58
162
7
16
34
0
5
1893
Percent of
OHULP
1990
Rural
OHULP
2000
0.41
471
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.37
0.43
0.35
1.04
1.54
2.40
0.59
0.00
0.32
1.09
0.43
0.33
1.09
1.54
2.40
0.93
0.00
0.32
NA
0.37
0.00
1.44
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.76
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
483
0.96
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
0.99
2.80
3.45
9.09
6.25
2.40
0.00
0.65
0.00
1.71
2.07
5.40
9.09
6.25
2.44
0.00
0.65
69
5809
254
410
15
39
46
0
7
127
Nevada (NV)
County/City
Total
OHU
Lyon
Mineral
Nye
Pershing
Storey
Washoe
White Pine
Carson City
13007
2197
13309
1962
1462
132084
3282
20171
128
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
93
8
134
28
7
844
4
27
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.71
0.36
1.01
1.43
0.48
0.64
0.12
0.13
1.22
1.21
1.06
1.43
0.50
0.44
0.00
0.23
0.68
0.00
0.44
3.42
3.74
0.37
0.00
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.10
1.16
3.35
1.79
0.00
1.70
0.00
0.00
4.21
2.40
1.41
1.79
0.00
1.41
0.00
0.00
213
14
346
57
17
2132
8
62
NEW HAMPSHIRE (NH)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
41
County
Belknap
Carroll
Cheshire
Coos
Grafton
Hillsborough
Merrimack
Rockingham
Strafford
Sullivan
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
2254
Total
OHU
22459
18351
28299
13961
31598
144455
51843
104529
42581
16530
0.47
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
70
160
211
84
217
538
287
306
280
101
OHULP
1990
2363
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.57
Rural
OHULP
2000
1296
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.31
0.87
0.75
0.60
0.69
0.37
0.55
0.29
0.66
0.61
0.33
0.87
1.02
0.81
0.96
0.56
0.79
0.28
0.70
0.82
0.32
0.52
0.67
0.78
0.78
0.19
0.54
0.27
0.63
0.35
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.69
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1746
0.90
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.68
2.63
2.05
0.61
2.87
0.70
2.19
1.74
1.22
1.64
0.44
2.63
4.09
1.08
5.11
1.58
4.55
1.74
2.85
4.38
181
315
370
152
368
1256
527
737
547
218
129
NEW JERSEY (NJ)
Ranking
2000
30
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
16530
0.54
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
95024
330817
154371
185744
42148
49143
283736
90717
230546
43678
125807
265815
224236
169711
200402
163856
New Jersey (NJ)
130
419
1483
321
1078
126
235
2651
244
2758
155
589
1023
800
569
502
1436
OHULP
1990
12914
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.46
Rural
OHULP
2000
488
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent
of OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.44
0.45
0.21
0.58
0.30
0.48
0.93
0.27
1.20
0.35
0.47
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.25
0.88
0.29
1.53
0.54
0.36
0.58
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.77
0.35
0.16
0.16
0.33
0.26
0.34
0.24
0.31
0.15
0.32
0.74
0.29
0.84
0.45
0.35
0.24
0.25
0.27
0.16
0.41
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.30
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
973
0.35
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.08
1.29
0.57
2.30
0.73
0.70
2.00
1.22
2.24
0.81
1.75
0.85
1.29
0.79
0.44
2.57
1.59
0.00
1.72
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
1.55
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1140
3905
788
3295
339
600
6891
594
7050
317
1697
3200
2183
1532
1418
4517
New Jersey (NJ)
County
Total
OHU
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
24295
108984
50831
186124
38660
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
107
351
108
1465
110
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.44
0.32
0.21
0.79
0.28
0.42
0.36
0.12
0.00
0.29
0.47
0.13
0.07
0.28
0.37
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.20
1.66
1.26
2.65
0.86
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
216
949
207
4040
212
131
NEW MEXICO (NM)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
3
11905
New Mexico (NM)
County
Bernalillo
Catron
Chaves
Cibola
Colfax
Curry
De Baca
Dona Ana
Eddy
Grant
Guadalupe
Harding
132
Total
OHU
220936
1584
22561
8327
5821
16766
922
59556
19379
12146
1655
371
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
1.76
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
1051
75
128
454
23
74
4
524
146
166
16
8
OHULP
1990
11898
Percent of
OHULP
1990
2.19
Rural
OHULP
2000
9095
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent
of OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.48
4.73
0.57
5.45
0.40
0.44
0.43
0.88
0.75
1.37
0.97
2.16
3.31
4.73
0.70
9.53
0.34
1.00
0.43
1.17
1.05
2.47
1.58
2.16
0.46
1.65
0.41
7.13
0.64
0.71
NA
0.86
0.64
1.18
2.15
0.00
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
5.73
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
10173
7.60
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.12
11.90
1.56
10.59
0.71
1.33
2.29
2.12
2.21
3.68
1.01
7.58
14.99
11.90
1.66
17.06
1.80
6.45
2.29
2.93
4.32
7.89
0.52
7.58
2774
143
324
1361
64
175
8
1903
375
307
22
15
New Mexico (NM)
County
Total
OHU
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
Los Alamos
Luna
McKinley
Mora
Otero
Quay
Rio Arriba
Roosevelt
Sandoval
San Juan
San Miguel
Santa Fe
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Torrance
Union
Valencia
2152
19699
8202
7497
9397
21476
2017
22984
4201
15044
6639
31411
37711
11134
52482
6113
6675
12675
6024
1733
22681
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
44
86
72
11
143
3917
109
196
68
471
27
594
1686
257
361
84
177
578
137
0
218
Percent of
Percent of
Percent
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
of OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
2.04
0.44
0.88
0.15
1.52
18.24
5.40
0.85
1.62
3.13
0.41
1.89
4.47
2.31
0.69
1.37
2.65
4.56
2.27
0.00
0.96
2.76
0.34
1.43
0.00
1.83
30.21
5.40
1.00
1.91
4.72
0.39
7.36
10.77
4.61
1.66
3.05
4.35
6.15
2.39
0.00
1.67
1.20
0.35
0.50
0.00
1.17
24.10
6.44
0.75
1.81
2.24
0.00
1.51
5.42
1.26
0.24
0.26
1.75
2.23
2.41
0.00
0.18
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.58
1.30
1.94
0.00
3.04
31.31
11.25
1.52
3.20
6.90
0.39
11.36
13.54
4.52
1.91
3.50
5.64
8.05
2.83
0.00
2.22
4.72
1.07
2.82
0.00
4.41
42.50
11.25
1.00
7.89
10.80
1.47
21.76
25.26
10.66
6.35
6.93
10.65
12.53
2.99
0.00
6.79
70
178
110
31
399
12666
248
515
160
1177
117
1853
5015
531
645
134
554
1064
316
0
587
133
NEW YORK (NY)
Ranking
2000
11
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
58418
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.83
New York (NY)
50428
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.76
Rural
OHULP
2000
5354
County
Total
OHU
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
120512
18009
463212
80749
32023
30558
54515
35049
19926
29423
134
OHULP
1990
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
537
158
7440
359
372
131
291
145
123
212
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.45
0.88
1.61
0.44
1.16
0.43
0.53
0.41
0.62
0.72
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.40
0.99
0.00
0.52
1.86
0.62
0.85
0.63
0.75
0.76
0.34
0.69
1.08
0.36
1.16
0.50
0.20
0.40
0.57
0.62
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.61
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
1.20
2.35
2.42
1.31
3.59
1.17
1.16
1.46
1.88
1.65
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
7750
0.78
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.85
2.65
0.00
2.72
6.57
1.91
2.44
4.24
2.49
1.63
1104
348
22340
660
1652
261
764
244
237
396
New York (NY)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
24796
18210
19270
99536
380873
15028
17931
21884
22770
18256
2362
25734
40068
880727
10040
22150
25368
286512
20038
447387
738644
87846
90496
181153
38370
114788
15363
45522
23291
32703
782664
59894
156341
92675
40506
78165
59684
11991
7374
74
113
115
381
1637
86
116
153
73
81
20
128
243
13114
80
76
107
1207
146
1605
11061
346
314
782
148
428
65
154
80
84
7628
351
710
430
461
212
195
94
39
0.30
0.62
0.60
0.38
0.43
0.57
0.65
0.70
0.32
0.44
0.85
0.50
0.61
1.49
0.80
0.34
0.42
0.42
0.73
0.36
1.50
0.39
0.35
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.42
0.34
0.34
0.26
0.97
0.59
0.45
0.46
1.14
0.27
0.33
0.78
0.53
0.26
0.57
0.52
0.38
0.43
0.61
0.77
0.96
0.56
0.58
0.85
0.70
0.64
0.00
0.92
0.38
0.47
0.19
1.06
0.41
0.00
0.27
0.49
0.37
0.47
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.42
0.21
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.96
1.53
0.54
0.55
0.85
0.66
0.24
1.77
0.77
0.23
0.30
0.29
0.57
0.96
0.42
0.68
1.30
0.60
0.66
1.23
1.19
0.31
0.39
0.44
0.46
0.31
1.50
0.28
0.42
0.28
0.17
0.27
0.47
0.24
0.39
0.00
0.68
0.54
0.42
0.60
0.60
0.36
0.26
0.74
NA
0.40
1.00
1.25
1.00
1.19
0.87
1.56
1.61
1.19
1.42
1.59
1.26
1.13
2.41
1.86
0.69
0.71
0.97
2.08
0.95
3.39
1.07
0.61
0.98
1.61
1.19
0.56
0.33
0.58
0.00
1.85
1.82
1.06
0.34
2.47
0.86
0.68
1.79
3.15
0.76
1.78
0.98
0.58
1.38
1.04
2.56
2.24
2.77
2.04
1.59
1.96
2.41
0.00
2.22
1.42
0.91
0.00
3.59
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.20
0.51
1.83
0.66
1.29
0.27
0.74
0.00
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.00
3.93
2.26
0.00
2.25
4.23
113
202
149
858
3735
170
215
275
220
175
31
255
587
37260
164
173
225
2720
503
4938
23740
808
593
1617
332
1094
117
357
156
203
23956
733
1909
1368
1525
442
407
144
101
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
12630
39071
469299
27661
19725
36420
67499
25726
22458
34908
337142
14906
53
307
1575
214
77
206
317
162
158
158
2178
42
0.42
0.79
0.34
0.77
0.39
0.57
0.47
0.63
0.70
0.45
0.65
0.28
0.69
1.19
0.34
0.65
0.38
0.52
0.38
0.94
0.89
0.50
0.06
0.44
0.53
0.46
0.33
0.55
0.44
0.45
0.54
0.38
0.47
0.88
0.32
0.20
0.83
1.98
0.71
0.85
2.22
1.57
1.07
3.99
1.76
1.92
1.44
0.51
1.94
3.66
1.09
0.52
1.35
2.43
1.26
5.40
3.19
2.86
0.00
0.88
168
993
5086
446
122
333
640
359
311
362
5857
85
135
New York (NY)
County
Yates
136
Total
OHU
9029
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
66
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
0.73
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
1.02
1.18
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
0.61
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.02
144
NORTH CAROLINA (NC)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
23
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
19295
0.62
33192
North Carolina (NC)
County
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Total
OHU
51584
13137
4593
9204
10411
6532
18319
7743
12897
30438
85776
34528
49519
30768
Percent of
OHULP
1990
OHULP
1990
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
223
62
23
103
99
27
208
192
116
188
272
166
138
161
1.32
Rural
OHULP
2000
10564
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
population
(as % of
OHULP
above 65
Rural
years in
(as % of
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.43
0.47
0.50
1.12
0.95
0.41
1.14
2.48
0.90
0.62
0.32
0.48
0.28
0.52
0.58
0.51
0.50
1.30
0.95
0.41
1.46
2.48
0.70
0.61
0.26
0.76
0.40
0.56
0.56
1.18
NA
1.21
1.77
0.51
1.60
1.98
0.68
0.36
0.54
0.99
0.58
0.53
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.85
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
0.80
0.46
1.82
1.74
0.78
2.08
2.71
5.75
2.49
1.22
0.54
0.69
0.00
1.12
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
Rural
OHULP
1990
27743
2.26
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.19
0.56
1.82
1.93
0.78
2.08
4.20
5.75
2.60
1.56
1.47
1.13
0.00
1.22
468
99
26
217
161
40
574
411
252
357
517
358
302
335
137
North Carolina (NC)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Davidson
Davie
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Iredell
2662
25204
8670
55533
19741
10336
5580
3847
37046
21308
34582
107358
6902
12690
58156
13750
18267
89015
20392
123851
17843
73936
3901
3354
16654
6696
168667
22122
33800
23100
37414
8953
11373
2185
47360
21
60
123
204
219
96
67
54
195
211
193
711
32
27
445
101
276
430
300
505
291
367
72
10
269
149
816
530
237
104
143
110
152
24
156
0.79
0.24
1.42
0.37
1.11
0.93
1.20
1.40
0.53
0.99
0.56
0.66
0.46
0.21
0.77
0.73
1.51
0.48
1.47
0.41
1.63
0.50
1.85
0.30
1.62
2.23
0.48
2.40
0.70
0.45
0.38
1.23
1.34
1.10
0.33
0.79
0.41
1.42
0.43
1.29
0.93
1.00
1.40
0.74
1.01
0.83
0.58
0.46
0.40
0.39
0.76
1.75
0.57
2.20
0.32
1.66
0.38
1.85
0.30
2.10
2.23
0.62
3.49
0.82
0.80
0.48
1.31
2.03
1.10
0.39
3.59
0.32
0.72
0.33
1.58
0.81
1.14
1.34
0.24
0.43
0.42
0.60
1.17
0.00
0.76
1.26
1.15
0.54
1.22
0.42
2.82
0.58
1.01
0.49
2.67
4.27
0.28
1.83
0.87
0.51
0.21
1.53
2.60
1.88
0.38
0.00
0.00
2.78
1.15
3.73
3.18
3.88
3.11
1.64
2.33
0.73
1.26
0.00
0.58
0.88
2.50
2.90
0.83
2.97
0.82
5.42
1.45
4.76
1.45
6.39
8.53
1.06
5.99
1.79
1.93
1.08
1.62
2.90
4.16
0.85
0.00
0.00
2.78
1.43
4.65
3.18
4.07
3.11
2.09
2.30
0.81
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.23
3.61
0.00
5.67
0.46
5.82
1.68
4.76
1.45
9.33
8.53
1.44
8.14
2.62
3.14
0.41
1.94
4.16
4.16
0.51
64
109
265
397
547
150
153
173
568
444
509
1787
104
44
804
170
643
1207
962
1261
653
868
158
9
641
427
2025
1143
602
177
402
308
456
42
300
Jackson
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Lincoln
McDowell
Macon
Madison
Martin
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
13191
46595
4061
18466
23862
24041
16604
12828
8000
10020
273416
6551
9848
30713
33644
68183
129
236
40
75
229
96
115
50
120
152
1118
66
90
234
516
237
0.98
0.51
0.98
0.41
0.96
0.40
0.69
0.39
1.50
1.52
0.41
1.01
0.91
0.76
1.53
0.35
1.07
0.53
0.98
0.17
0.87
0.27
0.75
0.48
1.50
1.66
0.41
1.01
0.96
1.24
2.21
0.00
1.47
0.76
1.15
0.18
0.94
0.54
0.98
0.56
2.38
1.09
0.47
1.86
0.50
0.82
1.33
0.42
1.37
1.53
4.09
2.49
2.20
1.29
1.98
1.10
2.29
3.47
0.94
1.90
1.10
3.05
3.97
0.63
1.36
1.81
4.09
2.03
2.35
0.56
2.94
1.54
2.29
4.62
0.00
1.90
1.21
4.76
5.56
0.00
333
521
51
254
467
278
201
76
193
352
3200
111
217
548
1174
562
138
North Carolina (NC)
County
Total
OHU
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Polk
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Rowan
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stanly
Stokes
Surry
Swain
Transylvania
Tyrrell
Union
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Watauga
Wayne
Wilkes
Wilson
Yadkin
Yancey
8691
48122
45863
5178
12907
16054
4645
14085
52539
7908
50659
17873
43677
36989
49940
25191
22273
13399
22223
17579
28408
5137
12320
1537
43390
16199
242040
7708
5367
16540
42612
26650
28613
14505
7472
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
177
213
297
43
73
69
51
166
382
51
276
130
341
225
181
165
237
140
98
173
259
73
32
34
162
217
839
139
63
94
264
112
243
49
46
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
2.04
0.44
0.65
0.83
0.57
0.43
1.10
1.18
0.73
0.64
0.54
0.73
0.78
0.61
0.36
0.65
1.06
1.04
0.44
0.98
0.91
1.42
0.26
2.21
0.37
1.34
0.35
1.80
1.17
0.57
0.62
0.42
0.85
0.34
0.62
2.18
0.65
0.71
0.83
0.57
0.44
1.10
1.56
1.27
0.58
0.59
1.10
0.81
0.64
0.38
0.64
1.20
1.04
0.45
1.23
0.76
1.42
0.33
2.21
0.49
1.69
0.56
1.80
1.37
0.68
0.48
0.44
0.91
0.31
0.62
1.42
0.66
0.35
1.50
0.51
0.68
1.27
1.79
0.87
0.91
1.16
0.34
0.97
0.39
0.43
0.45
1.23
1.87
0.46
1.22
1.59
0.49
0.24
1.15
0.40
1.15
0.35
2.03
0.00
1.03
0.55
0.81
0.29
0.25
0.36
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
4.91
0.71
2.82
2.91
1.80
1.58
2.91
2.76
1.36
2.13
1.45
1.20
1.25
1.32
0.80
2.13
2.95
1.64
1.73
4.05
1.83
4.52
0.48
4.89
0.76
2.77
0.99
4.73
0.62
0.39
1.30
0.66
1.58
0.79
1.75
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
5.60
1.89
4.46
2.91
2.87
1.63
2.91
3.68
3.26
2.35
2.19
2.30
1.43
2.00
0.39
2.59
3.27
1.57
2.72
4.77
1.51
4.52
0.00
4.89
1.17
4.76
1.95
4.73
0.00
0.48
1.84
0.92
1.38
0.83
1.75
330
378
560
129
137
133
145
404
983
150
595
238
781
546
487
393
527
256
185
429
523
129
64
67
451
602
2046
336
188
155
652
248
632
138
91
139
NORTH DAKOTA (ND)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
45
1124
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.44
North Dakota (ND)
County
Adams
Barnes
Benson
Billings
Bottineau
Bowman
Burke
Burleigh
Cass
Cavalier
140
Total
OHU
1121
4884
2328
366
2962
1358
1013
27670
51315
2017
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
8
37
22
6
16
2
6
47
213
10
OHULP
1990
1558
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.65
Rural
OHULP
2000
675
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
population
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
above 65
Rural
(as % of
years in
OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.71
0.76
0.95
1.64
0.54
0.15
0.59
0.17
0.42
0.50
0.71
1.30
0.95
1.64
0.54
0.15
0.59
0.41
0.18
0.50
1.46
0.75
1.20
NA
1.36
0.00
NA
0.10
0.41
0.81
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.61
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1209
1.10
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.39
1.44
2.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.54
0.73
1.79
1.39
4.69
2.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.97
0.31
1.79
13
55
27
9
23
NA
15
74
332
12
North Dakota (ND)
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Dickey
Divide
Dunn
Eddy
Emmons
Foster
Golden Valley
Grand Forks
Grant
Griggs
Hettinger
Kidder
LaMoure
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrail
Nelson
Oliver
Pembina
Pierce
Ramsey
Ransom
Renville
Richland
Rolette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Steele
Stutsman
Towner
Traill
2283
1005
1378
1164
1786
1540
761
25435
1195
1178
1152
1158
1942
963
2526
1467
2151
3815
3346
9889
2560
1628
791
3535
1964
4957
2350
1085
6885
4556
1786
731
1095
313
8932
923
8954
1218
3341
9
8
9
0
2
4
2
96
9
2
4
7
19
12
36
9
16
18
11
51
20
2
10
4
12
20
15
4
44
37
9
7
31
3
27
5
37
4
15
0.39
0.80
0.65
0.00
0.11
0.26
0.26
0.38
0.75
0.17
0.35
0.60
0.98
1.25
1.43
0.61
0.74
0.47
0.33
0.52
0.78
0.12
1.26
0.11
0.61
0.40
0.64
0.37
0.64
0.81
0.50
0.96
2.83
0.96
0.30
0.54
0.41
0.33
0.45
0.39
0.80
0.65
0.00
0.11
0.26
0.26
0.53
0.75
0.17
0.35
0.60
0.98
1.25
1.43
0.61
0.74
0.47
0.50
0.78
0.78
0.12
1.26
0.11
1.69
0.68
0.64
0.37
0.50
0.81
0.50
0.96
2.83
0.96
0.80
0.54
1.21
0.33
0.45
0.84
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.41
NA
0.00
NA
NA
0.87
1.95
1.54
NA
1.42
0.52
0.72
0.29
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
0.54
0.68
NA
0.66
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.69
NA
0.54
0.00
NA
0.91
1.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.78
0.00
4.90
0.79
1.39
0.54
0.00
2.03
1.57
0.00
5.41
0.00
2.47
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.56
1.22
1.11
3.90
4.11
4.62
1.19
4.29
0.40
1.63
1.10
0.91
1.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.78
0.00
4.90
0.79
1.39
0.54
0.00
3.75
1.57
0.00
5.41
0.00
9.86
3.70
0.00
0.00
1.64
1.22
1.11
3.90
4.11
4.62
2.76
4.29
1.68
1.63
1.10
10
10
15
0
NA
19
NA
166
14
NA
NA
9
38
17
61
16
45
38
31
98
30
NA
17
25
43
29
22
9
70
110
15
11
73
NA
47
NA
72
13
27
Walsh
Ward
Wells
Williams
5029
23041
2215
8095
30
68
14
15
0.60
0.30
0.63
0.19
0.93
0.34
0.63
0.34
0.95
0.43
1.39
0.37
2.39
1.31
0.00
0.20
3.63
1.49
0.00
0.72
59
122
33
17
141
OHIO (OH)
Ranking
2000
47
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
19407
Ohio (OH)
County
Total
OHU
Adams
Allen
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Auglaize
Belmont
Brown
Butler
Carroll
Champaign
10501
40646
19524
39397
22501
17376
28309
15555
123082
11126
14952
142
0.44
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
294
88
217
250
274
59
201
140
399
52
69
OHULP
1990
24394
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.60
Rural
OHULP
2000
7355
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
2.80
0.22
1.11
0.63
1.22
0.34
0.71
0.90
0.32
0.47
0.46
3.07
0.15
1.90
1.00
2.35
0.50
1.21
0.99
0.50
0.57
0.57
3.92
0.20
0.68
0.84
1.09
0.33
0.58
1.65
0.31
0.68
1.37
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.79
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
14480
1.49
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
6.68
0.50
5.33
2.06
1.88
1.10
1.35
2.34
0.88
0.89
2.03
7.25
0.00
13.34
5.41
6.23
3.59
2.43
3.49
1.93
1.55
3.64
632
185
1276
816
470
100
485
315
817
111
127
Ohio (OH)
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
County
Total
OHU
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Cuyahoga
Darke
Defiance
Delaware
Erie
Fairfield
Fayette
Franklin
Fulton
Gallia
Geauga
Greene
Guernsey
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Highland
Hocking
Holmes
Huron
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lake
Lawrence
Licking
Logan
Lorain
Lucas
Madison
56648
66013
15416
42973
14356
18957
571457
20419
15138
39674
31727
45425
11054
438778
15480
12060
31630
55312
16094
346790
27898
11963
6398
10935
15587
10843
11337
22307
12619
30417
19975
89700
24732
55609
17956
105836
182847
13672
190
192
101
167
99
74
2589
69
82
53
120
83
19
1552
57
120
185
166
184
1388
49
140
62
34
123
154
175
107
122
149
210
170
195
187
70
217
688
54
0.34
0.29
0.66
0.39
0.69
0.39
0.45
0.34
0.54
0.13
0.38
0.18
0.17
0.35
0.37
1.00
0.58
0.30
1.14
0.40
0.18
1.17
0.97
0.31
0.79
1.42
1.54
0.48
0.97
0.49
1.05
0.19
0.79
0.34
0.39
0.21
0.38
0.39
0.18
0.44
0.85
0.50
0.81
0.25
0.00
0.42
0.56
0.23
0.72
0.27
0.29
0.16
0.44
1.16
0.85
0.45
1.73
0.40
0.29
1.74
1.05
0.39
0.92
1.98
1.72
0.42
1.59
0.65
1.64
0.00
1.47
0.58
0.58
0.14
0.64
0.53
0.17
0.56
1.05
0.43
1.10
0.25
0.32
0.31
0.77
NA
0.33
0.24
0.24
0.29
0.52
0.93
0.52
0.30
0.31
0.21
0.20
1.00
0.59
0.21
1.68
1.69
2.47
0.20
0.71
0.32
1.13
0.16
1.24
0.35
0.59
0.16
0.46
0.58
1.01
0.87
2.10
0.77
2.75
0.29
1.11
1.35
2.00
0.13
1.32
0.53
0.72
0.93
1.77
2.67
3.01
0.92
1.52
1.08
0.94
4.61
2.03
1.63
2.60
3.83
5.60
1.67
2.68
1.11
2.67
0.74
1.54
1.25
1.99
0.66
0.80
2.19
0.33
0.82
2.17
1.32
4.65
1.56
0.00
2.03
2.47
0.00
1.35
2.04
2.02
0.00
3.42
3.23
5.07
4.15
3.23
2.63
1.83
9.06
1.63
1.38
3.31
6.40
6.29
2.52
5.10
1.64
5.69
0.00
2.69
4.42
3.61
0.32
1.24
5.12
348
521
176
323
274
180
6068
122
118
112
331
186
55
3091
87
229
918
348
620
3327
124
775
98
143
266
261
858
223
196
317
668
380
496
444
254
510
1425
101
Mahoning
Marion
Medina
Meigs
Mercer
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Morrow
Muskingum
Noble
Ottawa
Paulding
102587
24578
54542
9234
14756
38437
6021
229229
5890
11499
32518
4546
16474
7773
442
102
224
144
72
66
157
693
147
102
221
121
58
55
0.43
0.42
0.41
1.56
0.49
0.17
2.61
0.30
2.50
0.89
0.68
2.66
0.35
0.71
0.40
0.62
0.93
1.78
0.63
0.12
2.67
0.36
3.11
1.01
1.01
3.36
0.51
0.87
0.25
NA
0.44
2.70
0.47
0.15
4.60
0.19
3.03
0.23
0.70
1.77
0.52
0.37
1.07
0.26
2.69
4.08
1.70
0.67
4.68
0.85
5.62
3.64
1.11
8.77
1.73
5.20
0.88
1.48
8.76
4.58
3.49
0.00
4.75
0.00
6.99
4.51
2.74
11.62
3.90
6.40
1173
281
1028
287
148
126
600
1627
306
511
415
368
99
92
143
Ohio (OH)
County
Total
OHU
Perry
Pickaway
Pike
Portage
Preble
Putnam
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Seneca
Shelby
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Van Wert
Vinton
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
12500
17599
10444
56449
16001
12200
49534
27136
23717
30871
22292
17636
148316
217788
89020
35653
14346
11587
4892
55966
25137
40445
15105
45172
8882
144
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
83
73
148
188
75
57
279
277
31
263
113
44
480
697
310
119
69
68
156
131
184
350
50
90
29
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.66
0.41
1.42
0.33
0.47
0.47
0.56
1.02
0.13
0.85
0.51
0.25
0.32
0.32
0.35
0.33
0.48
0.59
3.19
0.23
0.73
0.87
0.33
0.20
0.33
0.83
0.36
1.84
0.34
0.44
0.49
0.90
1.29
0.27
1.18
0.43
0.26
0.28
0.02
0.64
0.31
0.53
0.81
3.37
0.52
1.05
1.39
0.22
0.37
0.08
0.38
0.61
1.53
0.33
0.00
0.36
0.31
1.30
0.00
0.63
0.42
0.30
0.25
0.30
0.27
0.46
0.57
0.68
3.31
0.41
0.65
0.44
NA
0.14
0.22
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.69
2.72
5.17
0.20
3.75
2.74
2.56
3.52
0.00
1.36
2.05
0.68
0.98
0.93
1.00
0.31
2.21
1.88
5.74
0.19
2.38
4.90
0.51
0.55
2.24
1.87
3.05
6.07
0.46
3.97
3.28
9.59
4.68
0.00
1.95
2.13
0.00
1.77
0.00
3.12
0.61
4.42
2.55
5.94
1.06
4.13
10.97
0.87
0.86
0.00
162
191
441
435
183
112
787
516
68
417
268
101
1096
1461
886
209
123
156
284
243
413
1652
145
156
46
OKLAHOMA (OK)
Ranking
2000
27
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
7546
Oklahoma (OK)
County
Adair
Alfalfa
Atoka
Beaver
Beckham
Blaine
Bryan
Caddo
Canadian
Carter
Total
OHU
7471
2199
4964
2245
7356
4159
14422
10957
31484
17992
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.56
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
130
8
67
4
29
21
92
68
100
93
OHULP
1990
7145
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.59
Rural
OHULP
2000
3883
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
1.74
0.36
1.35
0.18
0.39
0.50
0.64
0.62
0.32
0.52
2.09
0.36
1.61
0.18
0.89
0.41
0.81
0.68
0.75
0.65
0.79
NA
0.56
NA
0.58
NA
0.36
0.19
0.32
0.30
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.87
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
4741
1.28
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.58
0.00
1.80
0.00
1.63
0.62
1.47
1.42
0.71
1.22
5.89
0.00
2.50
0.00
4.62
0.90
2.01
1.44
2.70
1.75
269
12
134
9
26
46
183
160
243
206
145
Oklahoma (OK)
County
Total
OHU
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
Cherokee
Choctaw
Cimarron
Cleveland
Coal
Comanche
Cotton
Craig
Creek
Custer
Delaware
Dewey
Ellis
Garfield
Garvin
Grady
Grant
Greer
Harmon
Harper
Haskell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnston
Kay
Kingfisher
Kiowa
Latimer
Le Flore
Lincoln
Logan
Love
McClain
McCurtain
McIntosh
Major
Marshall
Mayes
16175
6220
1257
79186
2373
39808
2614
5620
25289
10136
14838
1962
1769
23175
10865
17341
2089
2237
1266
1509
4624
5319
10590
2716
4057
19157
5247
4208
3951
17861
12178
12389
3442
10331
13216
8085
3046
5371
14823
203
71
8
288
33
200
20
35
149
56
160
4
13
64
85
51
4
22
6
8
79
62
30
18
54
64
13
39
33
121
81
75
15
50
79
134
6
39
128
1.26
1.14
0.64
0.36
1.39
0.50
0.77
0.62
0.59
0.55
1.08
0.20
0.73
0.28
0.78
0.29
0.19
0.98
0.47
0.53
1.71
1.17
0.28
0.66
1.33
0.33
0.25
0.93
0.84
0.68
0.67
0.61
0.44
0.48
0.60
1.66
0.20
0.73
0.86
1.78
1.47
0.64
0.62
1.39
0.74
0.91
0.79
0.87
0.55
1.32
0.20
0.73
0.44
1.17
0.37
0.19
2.11
0.47
0.53
2.08
1.67
0.44
0.66
1.25
0.62
0.22
0.55
1.14
0.84
0.72
0.68
0.44
0.38
0.67
1.75
0.20
0.74
0.92
1.03
0.84
NA
0.41
1.66
0.21
1.07
0.44
0.46
0.85
0.70
NA
NA
0.31
0.43
0.21
0.00
0.59
0.00
NA
1.44
0.63
0.26
0.90
1.23
0.30
0.61
0.53
0.60
0.64
0.49
0.69
NA
0.54
0.97
1.38
NA
0.45
0.50
1.69
1.75
3.92
0.39
2.15
0.47
2.17
1.86
1.28
0.89
2.48
0.62
1.69
0.66
2.24
1.15
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.00
2.46
2.23
0.71
1.25
1.87
1.10
0.37
0.94
0.91
1.04
1.73
1.67
1.08
2.30
1.06
2.31
0.49
1.56
1.91
3.13
2.43
3.92
1.50
2.15
2.04
3.21
2.37
2.64
0.95
2.90
0.62
1.69
0.68
3.52
1.85
0.00
1.70
0.00
0.00
3.49
2.81
1.36
1.25
2.21
2.18
0.54
0.38
1.45
1.59
1.93
2.20
1.08
1.43
1.68
2.24
0.49
1.82
2.38
399
153
8
731
48
451
45
65
256
136
356
9
22
128
157
119
NA
29
10
20
180
120
55
37
115
103
19
109
81
250
200
147
22
149
206
337
13
61
271
Murray
Muskogee
Noble
Nowata
Okfuskee
Oklahoma
Okmulgee
Osage
Ottawa
Pawnee
Payne
Pittsburg
Pontotoc
5003
26458
4504
4147
4270
266834
15300
16617
12984
6383
26680
17157
13978
41
192
30
46
53
1206
144
124
105
63
150
202
62
0.82
0.73
0.67
1.11
1.24
0.45
0.94
0.75
0.81
0.99
0.56
1.18
0.44
1.28
1.01
0.85
0.35
1.40
0.49
1.34
0.91
1.02
1.06
0.83
1.60
0.60
1.54
0.38
0.88
1.03
0.68
0.35
1.42
0.70
0.49
NA
0.18
0.75
0.36
2.44
1.97
3.04
2.63
1.98
0.95
1.97
1.12
1.44
2.49
0.70
1.98
0.80
3.38
2.04
3.01
1.51
1.83
1.38
2.92
1.64
1.83
2.93
2.40
2.21
1.97
79
514
31
50
96
2920
316
258
245
126
260
403
113
146
Oklahoma (OK)
County
Total
OHU
Pottawatomie
Pushmataha
Roger Mills
Rogers
Seminole
Sequoyah
Stephens
Texas
Tillman
Tulsa
Wagoner
Washington
Washita
Woods
Woodward
24540
4739
1428
25724
9575
14761
17463
7153
3594
226892
21010
20179
4506
3684
7141
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
146
96
2
102
64
169
107
24
15
884
125
116
27
14
25
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.59
2.03
0.14
0.40
0.67
1.14
0.61
0.34
0.42
0.39
0.59
0.57
0.60
0.38
0.35
0.88
2.03
0.14
0.64
0.72
1.36
0.70
0.17
0.50
0.39
0.78
0.53
0.40
0.56
0.26
0.57
0.95
NA
0.68
1.22
1.47
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.70
0.84
0.62
NA
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.50
4.64
0.00
1.57
1.26
1.54
1.35
0.00
0.66
0.85
1.38
0.99
1.80
0.00
0.00
2.74
4.64
0.00
3.07
1.54
1.97
1.54
0.00
1.33
0.77
2.03
2.30
1.71
0.00
0.00
429
166
NA
205
119
396
255
74
25
2192
348
210
58
27
63
147
OREGON (OR)
Ranking
2000
32
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Baker
Benton
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
148
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
7025
Oregon (OR)
County
Total
OHU
6883
30145
128201
14703
16375
26213
7354
9543
45595
39821
OHULP
1990
0.53
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
96
103
378
139
99
232
35
82
179
251
6426
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.58
Rural
OHULP
2000
2256
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
1.39
0.34
0.29
0.95
0.60
0.89
0.48
0.86
0.39
0.63
1.45
0.62
0.30
0.97
0.70
1.25
0.58
0.73
0.51
0.83
0.93
0.00
0.26
0.62
0.60
0.53
0.56
0.58
0.22
0.26
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.82
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
3567
1.16
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.25
0.78
1.21
3.28
3.14
2.94
1.94
1.67
1.22
1.39
2.65
5.30
2.22
3.35
4.28
4.08
2.09
1.46
0.29
2.34
203
233
895
267
134
416
115
126
372
518
Oregon (OR)
County
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
Hood River
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
Total
OHU
819
3246
3036
7248
71532
6727
31000
25205
3084
130453
19296
39541
10221
101641
3776
272098
23058
797
10200
25195
9740
3029
9401
169162
653
28732
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2
55
29
75
307
77
413
201
29
587
128
148
50
314
26
1894
132
3
37
187
45
36
50
514
7
85
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.24
1.69
0.96
1.03
0.43
1.14
1.33
0.80
0.94
0.45
0.66
0.37
0.49
0.31
0.69
0.70
0.57
0.38
0.36
0.74
0.46
1.19
0.53
0.30
1.07
0.30
0.24
1.69
2.13
1.35
0.98
1.58
2.10
1.13
1.03
0.87
1.40
0.33
0.31
0.39
0.67
0.67
1.51
0.38
0.29
0.70
0.43
1.19
1.03
0.37
1.07
0.53
NA
2.21
1.13
0.00
0.32
0.35
0.51
0.79
1.34
0.20
0.40
0.32
0.00
0.33
0.80
0.49
0.36
0.00
0.32
0.62
0.49
1.45
0.27
0.22
NA
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.38
3.72
2.43
2.97
0.92
2.49
3.69
2.39
1.67
1.28
2.14
1.10
1.76
0.96
0.92
2.05
1.22
2.54
0.72
2.24
0.27
2.10
1.24
0.86
0.00
1.18
2.38
3.72
5.92
4.42
2.30
4.35
6.33
4.62
2.80
3.33
5.17
1.13
1.97
2.26
0.00
0.00
3.66
2.54
1.01
1.91
0.40
2.10
2.11
1.23
0.00
1.55
NA
124
40
208
754
155
796
397
47
1299
234
443
190
778
76
3650
275
NA
52
430
105
92
95
1299
14
188
149
PENNSYLVANIA (PA)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
35
24450
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.51
Pennsylvania (PA)
26355
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.59
Rural
OHULP
2000
8112
County
Total
OHU
Adams
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Berks
33652
537150
29005
72576
19768
141570
150
OHULP
1990
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
177
1932
196
271
171
881
Percent
of OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.53
0.36
0.68
0.37
0.87
0.62
0.67
0.39
0.84
0.55
0.88
0.66
0.51
0.35
0.74
0.55
0.87
0.49
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.77
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
1.36
0.73
2.69
0.89
3.12
2.04
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
14210
1.08
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.42
0.83
3.46
3.46
2.71
3.65
324
4037
364
558
373
2418
Pennsylvania (PA)
County
Total
OHU
Blair
Bradford
Bucks
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Carbon
Centre
Chester
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Columbia
Crawford
Cumberland
Dauphin
Delaware
Elk
Erie
Fayette
Forest
Franklin
Fulton
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Juniata
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lawrence
Lebanon
Lehigh
Luzerne
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Mifflin
Monroe
Montgomery
Montour
Northampton
Northumberland
Perry
Philadelphia
Pike
Potter
Schuylkill
Snyder
Somerset
Sullivan
Susquehanna
51518
24453
218725
65862
60531
2465
23701
49323
157905
16052
32785
14773
24915
34678
83015
102670
206320
14124
106507
59969
2000
50633
5660
15060
16759
34123
18375
8584
86218
172560
37091
46551
121906
130687
47003
18024
46712
18413
49454
286098
7085
101541
38835
16695
590071
17433
7005
60530
13654
31222
2660
16529
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
111
151
614
215
270
10
103
248
435
229
225
58
131
575
273
449
661
80
454
348
36
353
39
174
118
418
162
65
239
1114
360
209
559
583
184
69
466
283
140
798
54
523
207
100
4877
75
51
335
294
164
45
78
Percent
of OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.22
0.62
0.28
0.33
0.45
0.41
0.43
0.50
0.28
1.43
0.69
0.39
0.53
1.66
0.33
0.44
0.32
0.57
0.43
0.58
1.80
0.70
0.69
1.16
0.70
1.22
0.88
0.76
0.28
0.65
0.97
0.45
0.46
0.45
0.39
0.38
1.00
1.54
0.28
0.28
0.76
0.52
0.53
0.60
0.83
0.43
0.73
0.55
2.15
0.53
1.69
0.47
0.37
0.66
0.37
0.53
0.75
0.98
0.42
0.60
0.42
0.92
0.93
0.63
0.79
2.31
0.41
0.48
0.36
0.63
0.46
0.61
1.80
1.10
0.69
1.30
0.79
1.80
1.25
0.70
0.28
1.23
1.87
0.72
0.35
0.57
0.63
0.45
1.85
2.71
0.32
0.07
0.97
0.48
0.71
0.64
0.00
0.42
0.73
0.60
2.74
0.58
1.69
0.50
0.29
0.70
0.14
0.48
0.46
0.80
0.70
0.36
0.35
1.12
0.80
0.33
0.61
0.74
0.28
0.41
0.19
0.37
0.33
0.81
1.15
0.86
1.57
0.67
0.87
1.11
0.68
1.16
0.29
0.78
0.96
0.38
0.38
0.43
0.36
0.34
0.48
1.32
0.41
0.31
0.68
0.48
0.63
0.63
0.60
0.58
0.76
0.76
1.71
0.51
1.60
0.61
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
0.40
1.59
0.75
1.14
0.98
0.00
1.34
0.72
0.92
5.97
1.94
0.84
1.05
4.89
0.75
1.10
0.64
0.89
0.96
1.09
4.28
2.72
1.42
3.37
2.21
2.72
2.23
2.65
0.91
2.62
4.07
1.52
1.74
0.84
0.57
1.07
3.36
4.11
0.95
0.64
2.65
1.45
0.58
2.69
1.77
0.24
1.29
1.97
8.00
1.50
5.04
1.48
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.96
1.36
0.00
2.24
2.71
0.00
1.76
2.31
2.20
2.74
3.05
2.15
2.61
7.23
0.78
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.92
1.35
4.28
5.46
1.42
4.82
2.72
5.04
4.47
2.76
0.83
4.25
9.92
3.00
2.04
1.34
1.55
1.07
8.01
9.78
1.59
0.00
6.10
1.23
0.96
2.92
0.00
0.27
1.29
2.82
12.11
1.52
5.04
1.59
240
246
1713
440
556
26
193
622
1036
584
551
123
284
2519
646
1043
1673
185
1244
619
76
942
58
333
235
1768
639
200
477
3309
1197
413
1450
1331
392
155
1833
1097
397
1977
226
1148
511
196
13087
184
146
605
1209
393
74
150
151
Pennsylvania (PA)
County
Total
OHU
Tioga
Union
Venango
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westmoreland
Wyoming
York
15925
13178
22747
17696
81130
18350
149813
10762
148219
152
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
96
40
119
136
377
68
460
61
653
Percent
of OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
0.60
0.30
0.52
0.77
0.46
0.37
0.31
0.57
0.44
0.63
0.47
0.70
1.30
0.42
0.44
0.50
0.56
0.52
0.62
0.67
0.45
0.53
0.48
0.15
0.26
0.63
0.51
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
1.13
1.35
1.05
4.49
1.25
1.18
0.95
1.16
1.24
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.50
2.50
1.52
7.97
1.34
1.44
1.55
1.38
1.08
203
47
255
589
776
165
1068
133
1421
RHODE ISLAND (RI)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
31
County
Bristol
Kent
Newport
Providence
Washington
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
2194
Total
OHU
19033
67320
35228
239936
46907
OHULP
1990
0.54
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
59
285
194
1531
125
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1670
Rural
OHULP
2000
0.44
100
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.31
0.42
0.55
0.64
0.27
0.00
0.16
0.13
0.38
0.28
NA
0.36
0.14
0.42
0.22
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.29
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
233
0.47
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.07
1.59
3.01
1.33
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.61
160
601
304
4300
223
153
SOUTH CAROLINA (SC)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
22
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
9521
0.62
South Carolina (SC)
County
Abbeville
Aiken
Allendale
Anderson
Bamberg
Barnwell
Beaufort
Berkeley
Calhoun
Charleston
Cherokee
154
Percent of
OHULP
1990
OHULP
1990
16626
1.32
Rural
OHULP
2000
5476
Total
OHU
10131
55587
3915
65649
6123
9021
45532
49922
5917
123326
20495
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
99
234
73
268
50
123
139
203
81
658
131
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.93
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
12715
2.31
Percent
of OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.98
0.42
1.86
0.41
0.82
1.36
0.31
0.41
1.37
0.53
0.64
0.81
0.72
2.14
0.42
0.76
1.39
0.50
0.58
1.37
1.74
0.81
0.38
0.37
2.86
0.42
0.00
1.65
0.05
0.71
1.71
0.51
0.53
1.70
1.04
2.64
0.85
1.31
3.14
1.33
0.87
3.40
1.15
0.76
1.36
1.71
3.49
1.33
1.75
2.84
2.58
0.50
3.40
3.93
0.82
193
506
174
679
97
261
325
458
191
1516
259
South Carolina (SC)
County
Chester
Chesterfield
Clarendon
Colleton
Darlington
Dillon
Dorchester
Edgefield
Fairfield
Florence
Georgetown
Greenville
Greenwood
Hampton
Horry
Jasper
Kershaw
Lancaster
Laurens
Lee
Lexington
McCormick
Marion
Marlboro
Newberry
Oconee
Orangeburg
Pickens
Richland
Saluda
Spartanburg
Sumter
Union
Williamsburg
York
Total
OHU
12880
16557
11812
14470
25793
11199
34709
8270
8774
47147
21659
149556
25729
7444
81800
7042
20188
23178
26290
6886
83240
3558
13301
10478
14026
27283
34118
41306
120101
7127
97735
37728
12087
13714
61051
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
93
235
165
207
202
209
237
65
152
263
175
630
119
67
464
94
141
106
177
94
332
59
170
137
126
190
351
235
607
75
507
241
115
210
212
Percent
of OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.72
1.42
1.40
1.43
0.78
1.87
0.68
0.79
1.73
0.56
0.81
0.42
0.46
0.90
0.57
1.33
0.70
0.46
0.67
1.37
0.40
1.66
1.28
1.31
0.90
0.70
1.03
0.57
0.51
1.05
0.52
0.64
0.95
1.53
0.35
0.98
1.55
1.42
1.68
1.03
2.27
1.64
0.82
2.06
0.59
1.41
0.47
0.64
0.87
1.02
1.52
0.53
0.55
0.81
1.52
0.65
1.66
1.55
2.02
1.06
0.79
1.05
0.75
0.40
1.27
0.56
0.78
1.02
1.62
0.58
0.82
2.28
2.21
1.29
1.35
2.66
0.41
0.91
2.19
0.61
0.71
0.40
0.65
0.85
0.34
0.60
1.03
0.39
0.99
0.68
0.52
1.79
1.74
0.80
1.31
0.72
1.06
0.45
0.60
1.31
0.43
0.79
1.94
1.80
0.64
1.17
3.59
3.05
3.29
1.71
3.90
2.38
2.32
3.34
1.58
1.81
0.79
0.83
2.27
2.01
1.98
2.46
1.62
1.46
1.36
1.28
1.36
2.72
1.51
1.88
1.64
2.54
1.79
1.18
1.89
1.42
1.84
2.44
2.77
0.97
2.03
4.18
3.06
4.03
2.72
4.88
3.56
3.26
5.00
1.64
3.33
1.53
2.30
2.15
3.28
2.28
1.91
3.17
2.26
1.45
2.13
1.36
3.81
3.85
2.46
2.71
2.46
3.22
2.20
2.59
2.26
1.91
3.33
3.09
2.36
184
432
401
588
487
657
484
168
343
580
415
1359
296
165
1094
227
222
187
474
150
751
160
338
361
294
382
854
515
1581
259
1037
591
230
631
536
155
SOUTH DAKOTA (SD)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
19
1858
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
OHULP
1990
0.64
South Dakota (SD)
County
Total
OHU
Aurora
Beadle
Bennett
Bon Homme
Brookings
Brown
Brule
Buffalo
Butte
1165
7210
1123
2635
10665
14638
1998
526
3516
156
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
10
19
28
24
38
37
7
18
12
2315
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.89
Rural
OHULP
2000
1312
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
Percent of
OHULP
population
(as % of
OHULP
above 65
Rural
years in
(as % of
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.86
0.26
2.49
0.91
0.36
0.25
0.35
3.42
0.34
0.86
0.72
2.49
0.91
0.87
0.35
0.35
3.42
0.00
1.76
NA
0.00
1.33
0.60
0.19
NA
5.88
1.67
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.98
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1984
1.59
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.38
0.70
3.54
1.09
0.99
0.12
1.82
4.42
0.00
3.38
0.88
3.54
1.09
6.08
0.60
1.82
4.42
0.00
13
74
52
41
71
54
12
33
34
South Dakota (SD)
County
Total
OHU
Campbell
Charles Mix
Clark
Clay
Codington
Corson
Custer
Davison
Day
Deuel
Dewey
Douglas
Edmunds
Fall River
Faulk
Grant
Gregory
Haakon
Hamlin
Hand
Hanson
Harding
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson
Jerauld
Jones
Kingsbury
Lake
Lawrence
Lincoln
Lyman
McCook
McPherson
Marshall
Meade
Mellette
Miner
Minnehaha
Moody
Pennington
Perkins
Potter
Roberts
Sanborn
Shannon
Spink
Stanley
Sully
Todd
Tripp
725
3343
1598
4878
10357
1271
2970
7585
2586
1843
1863
1321
1681
3127
1014
3116
2022
870
2048
1543
1115
525
6512
3190
679
945
987
509
2406
4372
8881
8782
1400
2204
1227
1844
8805
694
1212
57996
2526
34641
1429
1145
3683
1043
2785
2847
1111
630
2462
2550
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
0
22
2
54
43
50
26
18
23
11
31
11
6
47
0
25
20
12
2
3
21
2
31
17
0
25
0
3
9
36
46
16
2
18
6
17
61
22
9
174
18
143
10
0
27
8
361
9
8
0
48
21
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.00
0.66
0.13
1.11
0.42
3.93
0.88
0.24
0.89
0.60
1.66
0.83
0.36
1.50
0.00
0.80
0.99
1.38
0.10
0.19
1.88
0.38
0.48
0.53
0.00
2.65
0.00
0.59
0.37
0.82
0.52
0.18
0.14
0.82
0.49
0.92
0.69
3.17
0.74
0.30
0.71
0.41
0.70
0.00
0.73
0.77
12.96
0.32
0.72
0.00
1.95
0.82
0.00
0.66
0.13
0.00
0.59
3.93
0.88
0.13
0.89
0.60
1.66
0.83
0.36
1.96
0.00
0.79
0.99
1.38
0.10
0.19
1.88
0.38
1.20
0.53
0.00
2.65
0.00
0.59
0.37
0.63
1.18
0.30
0.14
0.82
0.49
0.92
1.23
3.17
0.74
0.32
0.71
1.13
0.70
0.00
0.73
0.77
13.75
0.29
0.00
0.00
1.95
1.77
0.00
0.55
NA
0.58
0.36
NA
1.67
0.60
1.04
1.16
NA
NA
NA
0.64
0.00
1.67
NA
2.03
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
0.66
0.87
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
NA
0.48
0.23
0.57
0.00
2.13
1.39
0.91
0.72
5.36
1.43
0.33
1.30
0.14
0.94
0.00
0.66
NA
7.56
0.59
2.30
0.00
2.57
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
1.65
0.90
3.32
0.18
5.86
3.61
0.00
3.89
3.41
0.71
0.00
0.00
2.78
0.00
3.64
2.20
1.71
0.00
0.00
10.00
1.75
1.39
1.03
0.00
6.86
0.00
0.00
3.63
2.30
0.64
2.65
0.70
4.15
0.74
1.54
0.82
5.17
1.89
1.23
0.78
0.84
1.29
0.00
1.96
0.67
15.92
1.78
3.92
0.00
2.30
2.66
0.00
1.65
0.90
0.00
1.22
5.86
3.61
0.00
3.89
3.41
0.71
0.00
0.00
3.30
0.00
3.61
2.20
1.71
0.00
0.00
10.00
1.75
5.93
1.03
0.00
6.86
0.00
0.00
3.63
1.49
2.11
5.16
0.70
4.15
0.74
1.54
0.00
5.17
1.89
3.17
0.78
2.96
1.29
0.00
1.96
0.67
16.70
0.94
0.00
0.00
2.30
5.28
0
41
NA
130
108
166
30
44
29
16
102
25
19
52
0
45
65
34
NA
NA
80
NA
60
28
0
93
0
NA
10
38
110
21
NA
34
11
38
83
43
16
481
37
333
13
0
39
17
985
13
18
0
118
83
157
South Dakota (SD)
County
Turner
Union
Walworth
Yankton
Ziebach
158
Total
OHU
3510
4927
2506
8187
741
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
13
14
13
25
26
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.37
0.28
0.52
0.31
3.51
0.37
0.28
0.20
0.64
3.51
NA
NA
0.00
0.53
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.01
0.61
2.48
0.75
3.69
2.01
0.73
0.00
0.00
3.69
18
36
37
61
33
TENNESSEE (TN)
Ranking
2000
18
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
14340
Tennessee (TN)
County
Anderson
Bedford
Benton
Bledsoe
Blount
Bradley
Campbell
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Cheatham
Chester
Claiborne
Clay
Cocke
Coffee
Crockett
Cumberland
Total
OHU
29780
13905
6863
4430
42667
34281
16125
4998
11779
23486
12878
5660
11799
3379
13762
18885
5632
19508
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.64
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
64
116
51
99
186
150
189
44
46
199
44
56
201
60
269
86
21
106
OHULP
1990
23840
Percent of
OHULP
1990
1.29
Rural
OHULP
2000
8222
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.21
0.83
0.74
2.23
0.44
0.44
1.17
0.88
0.39
0.85
0.34
0.99
1.70
1.78
1.95
0.46
0.37
0.54
0.36
0.57
0.96
2.23
0.84
0.47
1.64
0.88
0.47
1.45
0.37
1.09
2.36
1.78
2.89
0.67
0.37
0.80
0.00
1.77
0.75
2.10
0.29
0.29
0.51
0.55
0.63
1.52
NA
0.67
1.80
1.58
2.47
0.46
1.44
0.38
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.04
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
19438
2.78
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.37
2.35
1.20
5.53
1.96
0.94
2.51
0.76
0.44
2.43
0.40
4.91
5.24
2.21
4.54
1.03
0.99
2.14
0.36
0.26
1.62
5.53
3.96
0.00
3.69
0.76
0.55
4.39
0.44
5.58
7.15
2.21
7.57
2.14
0.99
3.37
128
244
127
280
413
399
337
113
104
306
85
101
553
103
416
165
68
217
159
Tennessee (TN)
County
Total
OHU
Davidson
Decatur
DeKalb
Dickson
Dyer
Fayette
Fentress
Franklin
Gibson
Giles
Grainger
Greene
Grundy
Hamblen
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardeman
Hardin
Hawkins
Haywood
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Houston
Humphreys
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Knox
Lake
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lewis
Lincoln
Loudon
McMinn
McNairy
Macon
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Maury
Meigs
Monroe
Montgomery
Moore
Morgan
Obion
Overton
Perry
Pickett
Polk
237405
4908
6984
16473
14751
10467
6693
15003
19518
11713
8270
25756
5562
23211
124444
2769
9412
10426
21936
7558
10306
13019
8081
3216
7238
4466
17155
6827
157872
2410
9567
15480
4381
12503
15944
19721
9980
7916
35552
11037
10307
26444
4304
15329
48330
2211
6990
13182
8110
3023
2091
6448
160
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
1062
47
54
64
78
102
87
94
98
126
227
208
64
90
588
212
154
112
365
94
63
50
105
40
46
73
105
172
533
26
86
312
50
110
42
125
77
134
148
123
37
124
52
163
243
5
92
70
123
35
31
84
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.45
0.96
0.77
0.39
0.53
0.97
1.30
0.63
0.50
1.08
2.74
0.81
1.15
0.39
0.47
7.66
1.64
1.07
1.66
1.24
0.61
0.38
1.30
1.24
0.64
1.63
0.61
2.52
0.34
1.08
0.90
2.02
1.14
0.88
0.26
0.63
0.77
1.69
0.42
1.11
0.36
0.47
1.21
1.06
0.50
0.23
1.32
0.53
1.52
1.16
1.48
1.30
0.63
0.96
0.99
0.50
0.58
0.97
1.30
0.72
0.62
1.43
2.74
1.08
1.15
0.51
0.93
7.66
1.84
1.15
2.48
1.47
0.80
0.59
1.30
1.24
0.82
1.63
0.81
2.91
0.86
1.08
1.02
2.82
1.66
1.13
0.12
0.79
0.83
1.99
0.33
1.29
0.38
0.67
1.21
1.33
0.47
0.23
1.37
0.42
1.72
1.16
1.48
1.30
0.38
1.09
0.74
0.25
1.65
1.17
2.03
0.52
0.80
0.74
3.85
1.02
0.81
0.64
0.39
6.95
1.39
1.60
2.30
2.02
0.56
0.47
1.06
1.56
0.55
2.36
0.64
2.84
0.36
1.86
1.22
1.44
NA
2.10
0.29
0.63
0.28
2.68
0.63
1.52
0.48
0.64
0.73
1.40
0.39
NA
1.19
0.79
3.13
NA
3.97
1.40
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.98
3.20
0.91
0.94
1.30
3.43
3.58
2.24
0.41
2.61
9.05
1.60
3.23
0.22
0.84
11.14
3.50
2.89
3.75
1.80
1.86
0.81
2.68
1.43
3.17
2.43
2.29
5.22
0.68
2.86
1.61
5.69
1.80
1.70
0.41
1.36
2.44
5.00
1.20
1.94
1.00
1.59
4.67
2.68
1.06
1.98
4.67
1.23
5.03
4.02
0.57
3.54
2.17
3.20
1.34
0.90
2.96
3.43
3.58
2.85
0.60
4.40
9.05
2.71
3.23
0.00
4.07
11.14
4.45
3.25
5.72
2.31
2.42
1.52
2.68
1.43
4.95
2.43
3.75
6.61
1.74
2.86
2.39
8.46
3.17
2.43
0.00
2.66
2.47
5.80
2.23
2.03
2.43
4.03
4.67
3.49
0.70
1.98
5.49
0.56
6.37
4.02
0.57
3.54
2907
103
103
122
194
248
228
179
189
327
547
396
136
223
1445
446
337
224
704
247
111
69
284
47
107
164
189
360
1137
43
200
1424
113
193
103
239
103
243
395
277
63
201
214
315
567
NA
238
123
366
133
74
204
Tennessee (TN)
County
Total
OHU
Putnam
Rhea
Roane
Robertson
Rutherford
Scott
Sequatchie
Sevier
Shelby
Smith
Stewart
Sullivan
Sumner
Tipton
Trousdale
Unicoi
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Weakley
White
Williamson
Wilson
24865
11184
21200
19906
66443
8203
4463
28467
338366
6878
4930
63556
48941
18106
2780
7516
6742
2180
15181
44195
5936
13599
9229
44725
32798
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
162
86
84
80
218
122
67
188
2057
66
91
329
315
119
7
42
107
52
57
232
59
59
65
170
114
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.65
0.77
0.40
0.40
0.33
1.49
1.50
0.66
0.61
0.96
1.85
0.52
0.64
0.66
0.25
0.56
1.59
2.39
0.38
0.52
0.99
0.43
0.70
0.38
0.35
0.90
0.71
0.63
0.46
0.63
1.67
1.50
1.03
0.58
1.01
1.85
0.75
0.82
0.83
0.25
0.96
1.59
2.39
0.57
1.05
0.99
0.41
0.69
0.75
0.50
1.02
0.23
0.96
0.25
0.55
1.44
0.00
0.59
0.63
2.25
4.24
0.83
0.96
0.93
0.00
0.36
2.16
1.83
0.14
0.68
1.11
0.29
0.41
0.73
0.33
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.52
1.71
1.13
0.57
0.94
2.41
3.33
1.78
1.39
4.41
6.04
1.47
0.57
1.12
1.66
1.57
2.55
4.11
0.86
1.33
2.30
0.64
1.58
2.09
1.30
1.96
2.35
2.46
1.17
3.45
2.88
3.33
2.96
4.05
5.76
6.04
3.45
1.49
2.24
1.66
3.33
2.55
4.11
1.93
3.30
2.30
1.11
2.15
6.15
2.21
358
171
150
321
475
193
136
383
5496
112
154
604
894
237
NA
74
154
94
78
527
99
188
139
393
180
161
TEXAS (TX)
Ranking
2000
15
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
54853
Texas (TX)
County
Anderson
Andrews
Angelina
Aransas
Archer
Armstrong
162
Total
OHU
15678
4601
28685
9132
3345
802
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
OHULP
1990
0.74
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
129
28
181
57
14
2
56844
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.94
Rural
OHULP
2000
15169
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.82
0.61
0.63
0.62
0.42
0.25
1.07
2.15
0.74
1.00
0.47
0.25
1.02
0.52
0.60
0.40
0.00
NA
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.16
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
26028
2.23
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.00
1.31
1.36
1.58
1.81
2.38
3.12
8.20
2.31
2.17
1.85
2.38
264
147
537
137
20
NA
Texas (TX)
County
Total
OHU
Atascosa
Austin
Bailey
Bandera
Bastrop
Baylor
Bee
Bell
Bexar
Blanco
Borden
Bosque
Bowie
Brazoria
Brazos
Brewster
Briscoe
Brooks
Brown
Burleson
Burnet
Caldwell
Calhoun
Callahan
Cameron
Camp
Carson
Cass
Castro
Chambers
Cherokee
Childress
Clay
Cochran
Coke
Coleman
Collin
Collingsworth
Colorado
Comal
Comanche
Concho
Cooke
Coryell
Cottle
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Culberson
Dallam
Dallas
Dawson
12816
8747
2348
7010
20097
1791
9061
85507
488942
3303
292
6726
33058
81954
55202
3669
724
2711
14306
6363
13133
10816
7442
5061
97267
4336
2470
12190
2761
9139
16651
2474
4323
1309
1544
3889
181970
1294
7641
29066
5522
1058
13643
19950
820
1360
1524
2512
1052
2317
807621
4726
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
334
92
35
72
317
0
113
381
2960
34
3
30
231
375
268
54
6
94
87
72
46
146
76
30
1870
31
7
189
35
70
231
22
14
7
14
24
498
7
148
98
23
5
74
85
6
4
11
24
8
7
5058
30
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
2.61
1.05
1.49
1.03
1.58
0.00
1.25
0.45
0.61
1.03
1.03
0.45
0.70
0.46
0.49
1.47
0.83
3.47
0.61
1.13
0.35
1.35
1.02
0.59
1.92
0.71
0.28
1.55
1.27
0.77
1.39
0.89
0.32
0.53
0.91
0.62
0.27
0.54
1.94
0.34
0.42
0.47
0.54
0.43
0.73
0.29
0.72
0.96
0.76
0.30
0.63
0.63
3.68
1.65
3.99
1.03
1.97
0.00
1.46
0.58
1.63
1.03
1.03
0.55
1.14
0.66
1.12
2.40
0.83
5.03
1.01
1.35
0.42
1.82
1.45
0.70
4.05
0.98
0.29
1.83
1.45
1.13
1.53
4.06
0.44
0.53
0.91
0.68
0.62
0.54
2.48
0.24
0.43
0.47
0.69
0.78
0.73
3.03
0.00
0.96
0.76
0.00
1.10
0.81
2.32
1.03
0.00
NA
1.03
0.00
1.17
0.42
0.59
0.71
NA
NA
0.82
0.28
0.56
NA
NA
0.70
0.35
0.93
0.14
1.97
0.41
0.98
1.53
NA
NA
1.27
NA
1.03
1.01
0.76
NA
0.00
0.79
0.56
0.39
1.04
2.36
0.17
0.58
NA
0.76
0.69
0.00
0.00
1.62
1.69
NA
NA
0.38
0.52
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
6.09
4.46
0.00
4.88
4.99
0.00
3.07
0.97
1.50
0.00
7.32
1.06
1.12
1.16
0.94
1.48
3.42
5.68
1.49
4.44
1.22
3.13
2.04
0.95
3.98
0.65
1.47
2.52
4.10
3.36
4.46
0.00
1.25
0.00
2.61
1.14
1.24
0.00
3.07
0.30
1.91
1.39
0.60
1.58
0.00
0.00
3.54
1.72
0.74
1.80
1.47
1.18
10.33
6.79
0.00
4.88
7.70
0.00
4.16
2.17
5.40
0.00
7.32
1.38
2.77
2.61
6.59
7.69
3.42
11.04
2.89
5.31
1.06
4.44
4.45
1.20
8.10
0.00
1.47
3.22
7.51
4.55
6.37
0.00
1.70
0.00
2.61
3.20
2.19
0.00
3.73
0.00
1.96
1.39
1.40
3.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.74
0.00
7.86
0.00
914
190
151
119
691
0
286
936
8276
70
NA
65
538
1027
535
179
24
279
181
117
106
498
222
57
7262
64
12
499
176
167
571
45
22
18
28
50
1257
13
286
302
63
NA
183
197
19
10
20
80
21
NA
16573
71
163
Texas (TX)
County
Deaf Smith
Delta
Denton
DeWitt
Dickens
Dimmit
Donley
Duval
Eastland
Ector
Edwards
Ellis
El Paso
Erath
Falls
Fannin
Fayette
Fisher
Floyd
Foard
Fort Bend
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gaines
Galveston
Garza
Gillespie
Glasscock
Goliad
Gonzales
Gray
Grayson
Grayson
Gregg
Grimes
Guadalupe
Hale
Hall
Hamilton
Hansford
Hardeman
Hardin
Harris
Harrison
Hartley
Haskell
Hays
Hemphill
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hill
164
Total
OHU
6180
2094
158903
7207
980
3308
1578
4350
7321
43846
801
37020
210022
12568
6496
11105
8722
1785
2730
664
110915
3754
6588
4743
4681
94782
1663
8521
483
2644
6782
8793
42849
42849
42687
7753
30900
11975
1548
3374
2005
1943
17805
1205516
23087
1604
2569
33410
1280
28804
156824
12204
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
50
19
429
78
10
111
2
94
50
283
15
253
2338
107
84
72
99
18
50
0
607
49
53
77
15
558
10
19
3
19
130
18
221
221
219
188
199
59
13
14
9
12
133
8405
225
10
28
163
4
192
4844
85
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.81
0.91
0.27
1.08
1.02
3.36
0.13
2.16
0.68
0.65
1.87
0.68
1.11
0.85
1.29
0.65
1.14
1.01
1.83
0.00
0.55
1.31
0.80
1.62
0.32
0.59
0.60
0.22
0.62
0.72
1.92
0.20
0.52
0.52
0.51
2.42
0.64
0.49
0.84
0.41
0.45
0.62
0.75
0.70
0.97
0.62
1.09
0.49
0.31
0.67
3.09
0.70
1.52
0.91
0.41
1.13
1.02
3.62
0.13
3.06
0.86
0.45
1.87
0.74
6.01
1.22
1.22
0.55
1.46
1.01
2.10
0.00
1.68
1.40
1.16
2.02
0.08
0.54
0.00
0.33
0.62
0.72
1.94
0.00
0.62
0.62
0.58
3.07
1.08
0.67
0.84
0.64
0.70
0.63
0.86
0.58
1.03
1.45
1.10
0.80
0.31
0.65
7.19
0.64
0.93
1.26
0.14
1.27
NA
4.51
0.00
1.60
0.85
0.78
NA
1.12
1.06
NA
2.04
0.90
2.43
1.05
2.51
0.00
0.51
2.05
0.87
2.37
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.30
NA
1.03
2.06
0.00
0.35
0.35
0.63
3.03
0.53
0.28
NA
0.47
0.00
NA
0.76
0.53
1.19
0.00
0.76
0.49
NA
0.76
1.71
0.34
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.79
1.55
0.51
1.41
2.20
5.01
0.00
3.32
1.07
1.31
2.51
2.38
2.13
2.40
1.26
0.97
2.89
2.16
4.65
0.00
2.14
2.77
3.28
3.41
0.78
1.74
2.49
0.67
0.00
2.49
4.54
0.37
1.22
1.22
1.18
5.06
1.89
1.62
0.82
0.44
1.05
0.91
2.20
1.77
2.84
0.00
2.92
1.23
2.56
2.02
6.49
1.80
0.00
1.55
1.51
2.04
2.20
6.44
0.00
5.25
1.07
2.31
2.51
3.69
10.95
4.58
2.56
0.63
4.73
2.16
4.39
0.00
5.31
2.93
5.22
12.90
0.00
1.80
0.00
1.33
0.00
2.49
5.68
0.00
2.09
2.09
3.26
9.09
3.69
3.10
0.82
0.73
2.78
0.00
1.83
0.68
3.20
0.00
3.77
4.16
2.56
2.60
13.54
1.98
131
44
1120
141
21
325
NA
225
115
792
49
593
8253
465
189
142
148
16
69
0
2203
87
101
229
16
1374
77
38
14
45
342
28
498
498
490
405
570
226
46
17
35
28
371
26878
479
39
65
423
8
682
19920
183
Texas (TX)
County
Hockley
Hood
Hopkins
Houston
Howard
Hudspeth
Hunt
Hutchinson
Irion
Jack
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Jim Hogg
Jim Wells
Johnson
Jones
Karnes
Kaufman
Kendall
Kenedy
Kent
Kerr
Kimble
King
Kinney
Kleberg
Knox
Lamar
Lamb
Lampasas
La Salle
Lavaca
Lee
Leon
Liberty
Limestone
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Llano
Loving
Lubbock
Lynn
McCulloch
McLennan
McMullen
Madison
Marion
Martin
Mason
Matagorda
Total
OHU
7994
16176
12286
8259
11389
1092
28742
9283
694
3047
5336
13450
896
92880
1815
12961
43636
6140
4454
24367
8613
138
353
17813
1866
108
1314
10896
1690
19077
5360
6554
1819
7669
5663
6189
23242
7906
1205
4230
7879
31
92516
2354
3277
78859
355
3914
4610
1624
1607
13901
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
52
82
75
108
35
53
199
53
9
14
25
116
15
533
18
214
252
81
63
186
66
3
2
97
13
0
6
84
4
143
39
40
53
96
70
79
145
71
11
22
64
0
323
24
29
440
13
28
114
11
13
87
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.65
0.51
0.61
1.31
0.31
4.85
0.69
0.57
1.30
0.46
0.47
0.86
1.67
0.57
0.99
1.65
0.58
1.32
1.41
0.76
0.77
2.17
0.57
0.54
0.70
0.00
0.46
0.77
0.24
0.75
0.73
0.61
2.91
1.25
1.24
1.28
0.62
0.90
0.91
0.52
0.81
0.00
0.35
1.02
0.88
0.56
3.66
0.72
2.47
0.68
0.81
0.63
0.94
0.48
0.62
1.72
0.58
4.85
0.65
0.23
1.30
0.56
0.38
0.97
1.67
0.60
0.00
1.81
0.83
1.37
1.64
0.77
0.85
2.17
0.57
0.72
0.97
0.00
0.46
1.81
0.24
0.96
0.62
0.38
4.12
1.53
1.66
1.28
0.82
1.48
0.91
0.27
0.61
0.00
0.66
0.84
0.52
0.44
3.66
0.60
2.47
0.64
0.81
0.64
NA
0.52
NA
1.49
0.00
6.44
0.73
0.53
NA
0.80
0.81
1.17
NA
0.60
0.98
1.42
0.63
0.94
1.10
0.75
0.67
NA
0.00
0.57
0.77
NA
NA
0.39
0.95
1.09
1.30
0.38
3.90
1.91
2.74
2.10
0.20
0.60
NA
0.59
NA
NA
0.21
1.00
1.23
0.55
4.32
0.47
3.17
NA
1.06
0.30
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.10
2.41
0.85
3.57
0.28
10.44
2.01
1.75
6.25
2.78
1.66
1.82
10.34
1.05
3.58
3.69
1.41
3.23
2.57
1.92
3.35
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.38
1.12
0.82
2.02
0.99
0.34
7.39
2.66
2.90
3.52
2.25
2.47
3.61
1.80
2.92
0.00
0.75
3.40
1.78
0.87
9.38
0.32
3.81
1.64
5.49
1.80
2.25
1.20
1.26
5.89
0.00
10.44
1.99
1.35
6.25
3.72
2.03
2.35
10.34
2.77
0.00
5.73
1.43
2.60
2.86
1.96
4.03
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
3.80
0.82
4.00
0.53
0.77
9.40
3.42
4.06
3.52
3.91
5.06
3.61
0.60
1.86
0.00
1.19
1.95
3.05
2.97
9.38
0.65
3.81
1.85
5.49
2.48
128
166
233
230
84
137
510
139
17
22
31
224
23
1361
47
575
572
161
130
512
169
NA
9
248
21
0
19
223
10
282
99
101
94
234
188
179
541
126
23
62
117
NA
859
71
75
1124
24
55
333
26
17
183
165
Texas (TX)
County
Total
OHU
Maverick
Medina
Menard
Midland
Milam
Mills
Mitchell
Montague
Montgomery
Moore
Morris
Motley
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Newton
Nolan
Nueces
Ochiltree
Oldham
Orange
Palo Pinto
Panola
Parker
Parmer
Pecos
Polk
Potter
Presidio
Rains
Randall
Reagan
Real
Red River
Reeves
Refugio
Roberts
Robertson
Rockwall
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine
San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Patricio
San Saba
Schleicher
Scurry
Shackelford
Shelby
Sherman
Smith
Somervell
13089
12880
990
42745
9199
2001
2837
7770
103296
6774
5215
606
22006
16491
5583
6170
110365
3261
735
31642
10594
8821
31131
3322
5153
15119
40760
2530
3617
41240
1107
1245
5827
4091
2985
362
6179
14530
4428
17364
4485
3575
8651
22093
2289
1115
5756
1300
9595
1124
65692
2438
166
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
408
171
11
135
114
28
17
50
606
29
63
4
176
113
75
18
691
0
0
157
61
105
119
23
61
136
283
76
33
168
4
24
85
61
39
0
63
60
66
213
40
43
215
242
18
6
24
4
60
7
499
20
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
3.12
1.33
1.11
0.32
1.24
1.40
0.60
0.64
0.59
0.43
1.21
0.66
0.80
0.69
1.34
0.29
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.58
1.19
0.38
0.69
1.18
0.90
0.69
3.00
0.91
0.41
0.36
1.93
1.46
1.49
1.31
0.00
1.02
0.41
1.49
1.23
0.89
1.20
2.49
1.10
0.79
0.54
0.42
0.31
0.63
0.62
0.76
0.82
7.36
1.40
1.11
0.72
2.04
1.40
0.79
0.86
0.80
0.40
1.37
0.66
0.95
0.70
1.34
0.35
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.49
1.35
0.43
0.83
1.55
0.99
1.12
4.51
0.91
0.39
0.00
1.93
1.76
1.71
1.53
0.00
1.39
0.52
1.43
1.51
0.89
1.20
2.49
2.32
0.22
0.54
0.61
0.31
0.58
0.62
1.00
0.82
3.23
1.22
NA
0.24
1.24
1.88
1.42
0.52
0.54
NA
1.47
0.00
0.65
0.65
1.98
NA
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.45
1.43
0.49
NA
0.65
0.67
0.15
2.70
1.16
0.43
NA
NA
2.09
0.93
0.56
0.00
1.01
NA
0.66
1.10
0.92
1.64
2.88
0.95
1.37
0.00
0.56
0.00
NA
NA
0.79
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.26
4.46
0.87
1.23
3.07
2.20
0.90
1.59
1.99
1.33
4.14
3.88
1.80
1.77
3.71
0.74
1.43
0.00
0.00
1.39
1.64
2.92
0.90
2.31
2.18
1.43
1.45
4.58
3.54
0.58
0.00
1.22
2.17
3.74
1.29
0.00
1.85
1.94
3.17
3.23
3.68
1.52
5.48
3.59
3.30
0.00
1.30
0.50
0.72
1.41
2.23
0.89
8.25
6.95
0.87
3.27
5.24
2.20
2.42
0.68
3.09
3.25
4.59
3.88
2.91
2.15
3.71
1.48
4.17
0.00
0.00
1.66
1.68
2.33
0.99
2.05
5.28
1.39
0.00
6.76
3.54
0.51
0.00
1.22
3.03
0.68
2.33
0.00
2.99
1.89
1.56
4.09
3.68
1.52
5.48
8.26
0.00
0.00
3.67
0.50
0.98
1.41
2.78
0.89
1564
433
36
412
236
43
45
82
1715
88
181
NA
435
341
164
55
1896
0
0
280
164
194
255
98
124
320
744
191
54
465
NA
38
145
206
96
0
166
201
164
406
56
72
430
754
28
10
82
NA
170
34
1344
45
Texas (TX)
County
Total
OHU
Starr
Stephens
Sterling
Stonewall
Sutton
Swisher
Tarrant
Taylor
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Titus
Tom Green
Travis
Trinity
Tyler
Upshur
Upton
Uvalde
Val Verde
Van Zandt
Victoria
Walker
Waller
Ward
Washington
Webb
Wharton
Wheeler
Wichita
Wilbarger
Willacy
Williamson
Wilson
Winkler
Wise
Wood
Yoakum
Young
Zapata
Zavala
14410
3661
513
713
1515
2925
533864
47274
443
4278
765
9552
39503
320766
5723
7775
13290
1256
8559
14151
18195
30071
18303
10557
3964
11322
50740
14799
2152
48441
5537
5584
86766
11038
2584
17178
14583
2469
7167
3921
3428
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
679
6
0
4
10
26
1945
246
11
26
4
63
224
1590
45
109
119
6
115
217
161
161
155
138
39
143
1493
202
4
118
21
165
258
156
2
96
89
16
29
96
159
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
4.71
0.16
0.00
0.56
0.66
0.89
0.36
0.52
2.48
0.61
0.52
0.66
0.57
0.50
0.79
1.40
0.90
0.48
1.34
1.53
0.88
0.54
0.85
1.31
0.98
1.26
2.94
1.36
0.19
0.24
0.38
2.95
0.30
1.41
0.08
0.56
0.61
0.65
0.40
2.45
4.64
5.76
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.40
0.27
0.50
2.48
0.61
0.52
0.70
0.52
1.14
0.79
1.45
1.02
0.48
0.92
1.14
0.97
0.41
1.06
1.55
0.67
1.72
28.13
2.25
0.19
0.00
1.01
2.83
0.61
1.43
0.43
0.54
0.54
0.75
0.17
4.84
6.51
2.43
0.00
0.00
NA
2.53
0.00
0.27
0.30
3.57
NA
0.00
NA
0.39
0.40
1.38
0.96
0.81
NA
2.06
1.10
0.56
0.30
0.86
1.04
0.95
1.54
2.53
1.48
NA
0.19
0.34
3.20
0.43
1.99
0.00
0.44
0.25
0.00
NA
1.07
5.31
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
7.50
0.00
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.94
1.19
6.14
2.38
0.00
2.00
1.73
1.41
2.21
4.49
3.89
2.71
4.03
3.66
2.51
1.35
1.61
1.65
1.72
4.66
5.39
3.83
0.57
1.02
2.35
6.42
1.30
4.23
0.41
1.99
1.56
2.88
1.10
3.84
7.17
9.63
0.00
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.13
6.14
1.19
0.00
2.99
2.13
7.61
2.21
5.11
4.43
2.71
4.65
2.69
2.82
1.96
2.97
2.59
1.10
9.39
42.81
7.02
0.57
0.00
7.41
6.47
2.80
3.81
2.70
2.20
2.05
2.86
0.00
10.80
10.46
2511
NA
0
NA
14
67
6155
635
11
45
10
203
614
4381
122
228
242
13
314
684
369
505
332
468
117
240
6098
535
8
268
23
672
686
459
NA
241
194
54
51
353
462
167
UTAH (UT)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
OHULP
1990
Percent of
OHULP
1990
49
2906
0.41
2163
0.40
Utah (UT)
County
Total
OHU
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
1982
13144
27543
7413
340
71201
4559
3468
1576
168
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
18
51
44
27
2
88
57
17
5
Rural
OHULP
2000
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1164
1.43
1092
1.66
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
0.92
0.47
1.25
0.00
0.42
3.58
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.20
0.00
0.00
5.54
0.51
0.00
57
127
103
68
NA
346
109
40
12
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.91
0.39
0.16
0.36
0.59
0.12
1.25
0.49
0.32
0.91
0.46
0.14
0.42
0.59
0.00
1.63
0.49
0.32
2.02
0.54
0.00
NA
0.00
0.10
1.19
NA
0.00
Utah (UT)
County
Grand
Iron
Juab
Kane
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
Sevier
Summit
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
Total
OHU
3434
10627
2456
2237
3840
2046
509
645
295141
4089
6547
6081
10332
12677
8187
99937
4743
29939
890
65698
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
64
21
16
13
13
0
2
3
1074
723
39
29
9
32
30
258
10
64
10
187
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
1.86
0.20
0.65
0.58
0.34
0.00
0.39
0.47
0.36
17.68
0.60
0.48
0.09
0.25
0.37
0.26
0.21
0.21
1.12
0.28
5.62
0.38
1.48
1.10
0.32
0.00
0.39
0.47
0.94
22.12
0.78
0.56
0.11
0.70
0.70
0.51
0.35
0.28
1.12
0.25
NA
0.29
NA
0.00
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
19.29
0.66
NA
0.00
NA
NA
0.08
0.00
0.20
NA
0.26
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
8.49
0.11
2.50
2.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.97
39.95
1.31
0.29
0.00
0.43
0.18
0.42
0.00
0.10
4.76
0.39
32.58
0.41
5.60
4.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.08
1.43
0.45
0.00
3.10
0.31
2.79
0.00
0.56
4.76
0.00
154
58
43
36
49
0
NA
10
3253
2692
100
105
53
72
87
883
32
146
20
461
169
VERMONT (VT)
Ranking
2000
24
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
1481
Vermont
(VT)
County
Total
OHU
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
13068
14846
11663
56452
2602
16765
2761
9221
10936
10446
25678
23659
18375
24162
170
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
OHULP
1990
0.62
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
81
65
84
197
49
98
11
70
156
92
115
173
140
150
1952
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.93
Rural
OHULP
2000
1215
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
Percent of
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
(as % of
years in
Rural OHU)
OHULP
OHU)
0.62
0.44
0.72
0.35
1.88
0.58
0.40
0.76
1.43
0.88
0.45
0.73
0.76
0.62
0.70
0.55
0.99
0.38
1.88
0.59
0.40
0.76
1.46
1.03
0.67
1.18
1.04
0.75
0.74
0.24
0.57
0.10
1.26
0.63
NA
0.44
1.67
0.97
0.48
0.31
0.49
0.38
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.83
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
1732
1.24
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.76
0.71
1.67
0.52
2.83
0.47
0.00
1.75
3.93
1.77
0.75
1.67
0.92
2.51
3.07
0.79
2.70
0.49
2.83
0.00
0.00
1.75
3.98
2.29
1.52
3.42
1.66
3.04
138
137
190
414
86
183
16
158
356
166
252
330
284
247
VIRGINIA (VA)
Ranking
2000
16
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
19550
0.72
Virginia (VA)
County/City
Accomack
Albemarle
Alleghany
Amelia
Amherst
Appomattox
Arlington
Augusta
Bath
Bedford
Total
OHU
15299
31876
5149
4240
11941
5322
86352
24818
2053
23838
Percent of
OHULP
1990
OHULP
1990
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
404
291
76
85
124
45
516
281
31
202
35788
1.56
Rural
OHULP
2000
12128
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
2.64
0.91
1.48
2.00
1.04
0.85
0.60
1.13
1.51
0.85
2.90
0.78
1.99
2.00
1.61
0.85
0.00
1.37
1.51
1.00
2.11
1.17
1.96
4.57
2.01
1.78
0.41
2.37
2.38
1.20
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.66
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
30003
4.38
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
6.77
4.00
3.42
11.58
3.15
2.90
1.71
5.12
8.52
3.10
7.44
3.08
4.64
11.58
4.55
2.90
0.00
5.94
8.52
3.50
987
491
175
161
267
60
1740
683
57
340
171
Virginia (VA)
County/City
Total
OHU
Bland
Botetourt
Brunswick
Buchanan
Buckingham
Campbell
Caroline
Carroll
Charles City
Charlotte
Chesterfield
Clarke
Craig
Culpeper
Cumberland
Dickenson
Dinwiddie
Essex
Fairfax
Fauquier
Floyd
Fluvanna
Franklin
Frederick
Giles
Gloucester
Goochland
Grayson
Greene
Greensville
Halifax
Hanover
Henrico
Henry
Highland
Isle of Wight
James City
King and Queen
King George
King William
Lancaster
Lee
Loudoun
Louisa
Lunenburg
Madison
Mathews
Mecklenburg
Middlesex
Montgomery
Nelson
2568
11700
6277
10464
5324
20639
8021
12186
2670
4951
93772
4942
2060
12141
3528
6732
9107
3995
350714
19842
5791
7387
18963
22097
6994
13127
6158
7259
5574
3375
15018
31121
108121
23910
1131
11319
19003
2673
6091
4846
5004
9706
59900
9945
4998
4739
3932
12951
4253
30997
5887
172
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
47
99
174
163
161
153
197
222
73
179
256
35
37
201
59
135
156
96
1122
259
117
64
159
242
59
101
101
121
49
37
454
190
384
176
26
42
35
46
44
114
113
228
233
144
100
149
83
306
42
136
194
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
1.83
0.85
2.77
1.56
3.02
0.74
2.46
1.82
2.73
3.62
0.27
0.71
1.80
1.66
1.67
2.01
1.71
2.40
0.32
1.31
2.02
0.87
0.84
1.10
0.84
0.77
1.64
1.67
0.88
1.10
3.02
0.61
0.36
0.74
2.30
0.37
0.18
1.72
0.72
2.35
2.26
2.35
0.39
1.45
2.00
3.14
2.11
2.36
0.99
0.44
3.30
1.83
1.14
2.86
1.56
3.02
0.84
2.46
1.86
2.73
3.62
0.58
0.94
1.80
1.99
1.77
2.01
1.91
2.88
0.15
1.70
2.02
1.29
0.88
1.63
0.88
0.73
1.58
1.68
0.88
1.24
3.73
1.13
0.55
0.93
2.30
0.57
0.52
1.72
0.72
2.91
2.26
2.30
1.12
1.45
2.00
3.14
2.11
2.84
0.99
0.83
3.30
3.42
1.42
2.72
2.69
4.30
0.23
3.97
3.01
4.01
3.79
0.31
0.69
2.30
2.87
3.01
0.74
0.82
3.90
0.26
2.05
1.08
1.17
1.27
1.57
0.82
0.97
1.82
1.01
0.94
1.51
3.28
1.75
0.53
0.72
4.10
0.78
0.17
2.42
0.86
4.00
0.89
2.71
1.12
2.10
2.17
3.95
3.60
3.95
2.16
0.69
5.19
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
8.67
5.51
7.96
3.60
8.12
3.56
6.09
4.69
5.71
9.48
1.24
4.71
3.78
3.63
5.08
5.38
7.33
6.38
0.72
8.14
7.18
3.37
3.51
2.54
2.21
0.81
8.73
3.23
1.80
1.23
7.44
7.97
0.87
1.91
0.00
0.83
2.22
3.41
1.81
11.11
6.90
5.08
2.59
7.33
3.50
7.20
12.03
6.89
4.09
0.82
11.15
8.67
5.50
8.93
3.60
8.12
3.58
6.09
4.80
5.71
9.48
5.56
7.44
3.78
4.79
5.54
5.38
9.99
7.52
0.00
10.19
7.18
3.74
4.15
3.68
1.88
0.00
8.73
3.25
1.80
1.35
9.78
15.94
3.24
2.18
0.00
1.47
7.55
3.41
1.81
12.85
6.90
5.09
6.30
7.33
3.50
7.20
12.03
9.43
4.09
2.44
11.15
127
195
428
282
423
240
551
403
208
516
672
93
62
414
218
214
304
189
3291
700
193
145
213
524
112
169
153
270
90
63
1000
387
975
326
61
111
111
84
79
230
246
417
713
316
198
321
182
580
87
322
481
Virginia (VA)
County/City
Total
OHU
New Kent
Northampton
Northumberland
Nottoway
Orange
Page
Patrick
Pittsylvania
Powhatan
Prince Edward
Prince George
Prince William
Pulaski
Rappahannock
Richmond
Roanoke
Hanover
Henrico
Henry
Highland
Isle of Wight
James City
King and Queen
King George
King William
Lancaster
Lee
Loudoun
Louisa
Lunenburg
Madison
Mathews
Mecklenburg
Middlesex
Montgomery
Nelson
New Kent
Northampton
Northumberland
Nottoway
Orange
Page
Patrick
Pittsylvania
Powhatan
Prince Edward
Prince George
Prince William
Pulaski
Rappahannock
Richmond
4925
5321
5470
5664
10150
9305
8141
24684
7258
6561
10159
94570
14643
2788
2937
34686
31121
108121
23910
1131
11319
19003
2673
6091
4846
5004
9706
59900
9945
4998
4739
3932
12951
4253
30997
5887
4925
5321
5470
5664
10150
9305
8141
24684
7258
6561
10159
94570
14643
2788
2937
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
14
245
158
87
96
154
88
440
76
102
36
250
156
78
78
103
190
384
176
26
42
35
46
44
114
113
228
233
144
100
149
83
306
42
136
194
14
245
158
87
96
154
88
440
76
102
36
250
156
78
78
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.28
4.60
2.89
1.54
0.95
1.66
1.08
1.78
1.05
1.55
0.35
0.26
1.07
2.80
2.66
0.30
0.61
0.36
0.74
2.30
0.37
0.18
1.72
0.72
2.35
2.26
2.35
0.39
1.45
2.00
3.14
2.11
2.36
0.99
0.44
3.30
0.28
4.60
2.89
1.54
0.95
1.66
1.08
1.78
1.05
1.55
0.35
0.26
1.07
2.80
2.66
0.28
4.60
2.89
2.24
1.44
1.84
1.08
1.95
1.05
1.84
0.17
0.57
1.46
2.80
3.12
0.49
1.13
0.55
0.93
2.30
0.57
0.52
1.72
0.72
2.91
2.26
2.30
1.12
1.45
2.00
3.14
2.11
2.84
0.99
0.83
3.30
0.28
4.60
2.89
2.24
1.44
1.84
1.08
1.95
1.05
1.84
0.17
0.57
1.46
2.80
3.12
0.92
2.76
1.80
1.08
0.96
2.15
1.67
1.82
1.61
2.34
0.46
0.25
1.36
1.76
0.85
0.33
1.75
0.53
0.72
4.10
0.78
0.17
2.42
0.86
4.00
0.89
2.71
1.12
2.10
2.17
3.95
3.60
3.95
2.16
0.69
5.19
0.92
2.76
1.80
1.08
0.96
2.15
1.67
1.82
1.61
2.34
0.46
0.25
1.36
1.76
0.85
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.82
10.73
7.55
1.55
2.33
5.96
2.77
6.08
3.15
2.14
2.48
0.94
3.59
4.64
9.20
0.79
7.97
0.87
1.91
0.00
0.83
2.22
3.41
1.81
11.11
6.90
5.08
2.59
7.33
3.50
7.20
12.03
6.89
4.09
0.82
11.15
2.82
10.73
7.55
1.55
2.33
5.96
2.77
6.08
3.15
2.14
2.48
0.94
3.59
4.64
9.20
2.82
10.73
7.55
2.93
3.52
6.89
2.77
6.44
3.15
2.22
2.13
9.50
6.96
4.64
11.22
0.00
15.94
3.24
2.18
0.00
1.47
7.55
3.41
1.81
12.85
6.90
5.09
6.30
7.33
3.50
7.20
12.03
9.43
4.09
2.44
11.15
2.82
10.73
7.55
2.93
3.52
6.89
2.77
6.44
3.15
2.22
2.13
9.50
6.96
4.64
11.22
20
601
361
271
223
244
194
804
180
194
89
848
332
184
182
277
387
975
326
61
111
111
84
79
230
246
417
713
316
198
321
182
580
87
322
481
20
601
361
271
223
244
194
804
180
194
89
848
332
184
182
173
Virginia (VA)
County/City
Roanoke
Rockbridge
Rockingham
Russell
Scott
Shenandoah
Smyth
Southampton
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Surry
Sussex
Tazewell
Warren
Washington
Westmoreland
Wise
Wythe
York
Alexandria City
Bedford City
Bristol City
Buena Vista City
Charlottesville City
Chesapeake City
Clifton Forge City
Colonial Heights City
Covington City
Danville City
Emporia City
Fairfax City
Falls Church City
Franklin City
Fredericksburg City
Galax City
Hampton City
Harrisonburg City
Hopewell City
Lexington City
Lynchburg City
Manassas City
Manassas Park City
Martinsville City
Newport News City
Norfolk City
Norton City
Petersburg City
Poquoson City
Portsmouth City
Radford City
Richmond City
174
Total
OHU
34686
8486
25355
11789
9795
14296
13493
6279
31308
30187
2619
4126
18277
12087
21056
6846
16013
11511
20000
61889
2519
7678
2547
16851
69900
1841
7027
2835
20607
2226
8035
4471
3384
8102
2950
53887
13133
9055
2232
25477
11757
3254
6498
69686
86210
1730
13799
4166
38170
5809
84549
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
103
188
405
197
302
290
136
263
168
71
53
116
203
147
245
198
112
148
17
295
35
8
0
67
284
0
6
15
173
0
24
15
6
15
32
107
64
26
0
52
5
11
24
381
560
5
114
7
214
9
454
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.30
2.22
1.60
1.67
3.08
2.03
1.01
4.19
0.54
0.24
2.02
2.81
1.11
1.22
1.16
2.89
0.70
1.29
0.09
0.48
1.39
0.10
0.00
0.40
0.41
0.00
0.09
0.53
0.84
0.00
0.30
0.34
0.18
0.19
1.08
0.20
0.49
0.29
0.00
0.20
0.04
0.34
0.37
0.55
0.65
0.29
0.83
0.17
0.56
0.15
0.54
0.49
2.30
2.21
1.91
3.74
2.41
1.19
4.28
1.08
0.45
2.02
2.81
1.56
2.05
1.62
3.99
1.03
1.54
0.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
3.20
2.88
3.28
2.50
3.21
1.83
4.79
0.70
1.23
1.66
1.59
1.45
0.94
1.25
2.54
0.40
1.66
NA
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.68
0.00
0.34
NA
0.44
0.00
0.42
0.00
NA
0.00
1.41
0.20
0.60
NA
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.41
0.44
NA
0.49
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.38
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.79
5.65
5.21
3.67
7.93
5.79
2.77
13.10
4.15
1.92
5.44
7.48
2.09
2.43
2.98
7.90
1.69
5.27
1.20
2.50
5.05
0.00
0.00
0.70
1.65
0.00
0.00
2.24
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.62
1.24
1.04
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.43
1.11
0.96
1.28
1.72
0.00
0.78
0.50
1.04
0.00
6.34
7.49
4.24
9.35
7.13
3.73
13.10
9.39
2.60
5.44
7.48
2.44
7.93
4.05
12.24
3.11
8.27
14.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
277
395
936
345
647
612
251
571
389
204
149
216
406
226
519
557
240
231
29
889
46
30
0
107
807
0
18
18
343
0
150
35
10
74
72
228
208
46
0
79
17
22
29
962
1458
NA
368
7
607
42
1022
Virginia (VA)
County/City
Total
OHU
Roanoke City
Salem City
Staunton City
Suffolk City
Virginia Beach City
Waynesboro City
Williamsburg City
Winchester City
42003
9954
9676
23283
154455
8332
3619
10001
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
215
9
21
207
433
45
7
17
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
0.51
0.09
0.22
0.89
0.28
0.54
0.19
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.92
1.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.65
1.24
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.32
0.00
0.00
3.78
0.64
0.67
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.49
6.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
341
18
55
457
1046
88
26
24
175
WASHINGTON (WA)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
28
12457
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.55
Washington (WA)
10128
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.54
Rural
OHULP
2000
4066
County
Total
OHU
Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
5229
8364
52866
25021
27164
127208
1687
35850
11726
2823
176
OHULP
1990
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
18
45
200
228
220
433
16
128
105
128
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.05
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
5016
1.22
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.34
0.54
0.38
0.91
0.81
0.34
0.95
0.36
0.90
4.53
0.44
2.10
0.68
1.14
1.36
0.53
1.23
0.43
1.96
4.53
0.00
0.26
0.11
0.20
0.15
0.26
0.97
0.18
0.89
1.33
1.17
0.73
1.62
2.58
1.70
1.08
0.00
0.80
2.70
9.07
2.73
13.79
0.00
2.80
2.58
0.69
0.00
1.58
4.24
9.07
53
93
658
751
510
918
23
260
301
226
Washington (WA)
County
Total
OHU
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima
14840
987
25204
26808
27784
11645
710916
86416
13382
7473
26306
4151
18912
15027
9096
4639
260800
6466
38852
3755
224852
163611
15017
81625
1553
19647
64446
15257
73993
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
89
9
194
156
136
208
3662
329
105
83
186
17
125
415
66
151
952
260
299
56
854
829
323
362
22
105
292
53
598
Percent of
OHULP
(as % of
OHU)
Percent of
Rural
OHULP
(as % of
Rural OHU)
Percent of
population
above 65
years in
OHULP
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.60
0.91
0.77
0.58
0.49
1.79
0.52
0.38
0.78
1.11
0.71
0.41
0.66
2.76
0.73
3.26
0.37
4.02
0.77
1.49
0.38
0.51
2.15
0.44
1.42
0.53
0.45
0.35
0.81
1.08
0.91
0.67
0.80
0.72
1.73
0.76
0.43
0.49
1.29
0.82
0.41
0.76
3.34
1.06
3.26
0.63
4.02
1.42
1.49
1.10
0.48
2.69
0.66
1.42
0.30
0.81
0.32
0.77
0.22
2.13
0.61
0.46
0.14
0.35
0.29
0.33
0.72
1.22
0.43
0.00
0.14
1.04
0.31
3.25
0.27
1.73
0.10
NA
0.30
0.35
1.06
0.37
1.62
0.10
0.10
0.22
0.31
1.59
1.61
2.46
1.31
2.83
6.02
1.63
0.85
1.52
1.36
1.65
1.20
2.61
6.17
1.62
5.79
1.05
9.79
2.48
4.14
1.10
1.72
5.94
1.56
1.57
0.75
1.08
0.42
2.20
6.51
1.61
2.55
2.62
2.86
5.29
3.03
2.41
0.79
2.83
2.37
1.20
2.64
7.57
1.19
5.79
2.17
9.79
4.19
4.14
5.57
1.21
7.15
1.47
1.57
0.00
3.15
0.39
2.14
344
18
534
351
268
340
7606
683
166
137
406
52
253
1029
107
302
2420
504
828
101
1982
1414
813
685
32
307
665
107
2025
177
WEST VIRGINIA (WV)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
5
7451
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
1.01
West Virginia (WV)
County
Total
OHU
Barbour
Berkeley
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
6123
29569
10291
5771
10396
41180
3071
4020
2845
178
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
139
133
116
207
41
170
134
89
98
OHULP
1990
15972
Percent of
OHULP
1990
2.32
Rural
OHULP
2000
5896
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
2.27
0.45
1.13
3.59
0.39
0.41
4.36
2.21
3.44
2.72
0.36
1.17
3.59
0.46
0.77
4.36
2.21
3.44
3.37
0.31
1.81
2.20
NA
0.33
7.21
3.14
4.09
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
1.55
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
14925
3.55
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.58
1.56
2.42
9.31
1.09
0.78
9.84
4.11
9.91
5.93
1.59
2.76
9.31
1.75
1.94
9.84
4.11
9.91
256
279
253
463
70
444
235
155
242
West Virginia (WV)
County
Total
OHU
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hampshire
Hancock
Hardy
Harrison
Jackson
Jefferson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Marion
Marshall
Mason
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Monroe
Morgan
Nicholas
Ohio
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
18945
2768
4591
14571
7955
13678
5204
27867
11061
16165
86226
6946
8664
14880
11169
23652
14207
10587
26509
10784
11303
33446
5447
6145
10722
19733
3350
2887
3835
11544
20028
31793
11072
4184
6161
5530
6320
3052
3836
8972
17239
4010
7164
2284
36275
10454
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
255
14
65
174
184
58
166
142
130
79
494
92
210
108
186
152
89
135
213
51
141
189
102
66
149
67
109
49
95
163
167
287
122
104
162
125
49
36
59
194
241
184
83
59
172
153
Percent of
Rural
Percent of
OHULP
Percent of
population
(as % of
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
Rural
years in
OHU)
OHU)
OHULP
1.35
0.51
1.42
1.19
2.31
0.42
3.19
0.51
1.18
0.49
0.57
1.32
2.42
0.73
1.67
0.64
0.63
1.28
0.80
0.47
1.25
0.57
1.87
1.07
1.39
0.34
3.25
1.70
2.48
1.41
0.83
0.90
1.10
2.49
2.63
2.26
0.78
1.18
1.54
2.16
1.40
4.59
1.16
2.58
0.47
1.46
1.87
0.51
1.77
1.50
2.31
0.35
3.19
0.65
1.12
0.69
0.93
1.69
2.42
0.70
1.79
0.65
0.96
1.66
1.31
0.57
1.22
0.85
1.89
1.07
1.73
0.53
3.25
2.88
2.48
1.53
1.42
1.53
1.58
2.49
3.18
2.85
1.10
1.18
2.00
3.24
2.10
4.59
2.23
2.58
0.82
1.57
1.76
0.00
1.19
1.51
3.62
0.35
5.81
0.78
1.23
0.92
0.68
2.04
1.02
0.84
1.35
0.73
0.54
0.32
0.73
0.64
1.68
0.73
2.17
1.73
2.32
0.40
5.75
2.33
4.29
1.86
0.65
1.05
1.34
2.90
2.81
1.48
1.80
1.85
0.93
3.59
1.21
4.50
1.12
3.56
0.56
1.88
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty
level in
1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.81
0.86
4.81
3.22
4.08
1.56
8.65
1.41
3.30
1.84
1.41
3.66
5.10
1.67
3.52
0.82
1.62
3.85
1.41
1.32
1.87
0.87
5.15
1.91
3.16
1.13
8.77
7.27
6.32
3.17
3.15
2.46
3.79
8.81
6.08
3.80
3.03
4.53
4.01
4.71
2.65
8.53
3.92
7.08
1.35
2.99
5.54
0.86
6.34
4.03
4.08
0.00
8.65
2.47
3.58
3.73
2.61
4.72
5.10
1.95
3.60
0.76
3.42
6.00
2.35
1.95
2.18
1.62
5.25
1.91
4.05
1.28
8.77
16.36
6.32
3.66
6.24
4.62
5.85
8.81
8.34
4.47
4.79
4.53
5.84
7.92
3.83
8.53
7.35
7.08
3.67
3.37
469
20
160
278
329
91
290
253
181
209
973
235
397
219
395
242
234
232
339
107
320
380
240
116
271
105
234
78
151
329
345
621
197
170
305
243
104
67
92
405
467
325
166
182
384
300
179
WISCONSIN (WI)
Ranking
2000
36
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
10648
Wisconsin (WI)
County
Adams
Ashland
Barron
Bayfield
Brown
Buffalo
Burnett
Calumet
Chippewa
Clark
180
Total
OHU
7900
6718
17851
6207
87295
5511
6613
14910
21356
12047
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.51
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
51
107
129
146
286
58
80
28
103
227
OHULP
1990
11780
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.65
Rural
OHULP
2000
4879
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.65
1.59
0.72
2.35
0.33
1.05
1.21
0.19
0.48
1.88
0.65
2.15
1.03
2.35
0.45
1.05
1.21
0.39
0.63
2.05
0.32
0.53
0.91
1.05
0.29
1.07
1.12
0.22
0.62
1.25
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.77
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
7115
1.20
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
2.21
4.56
3.01
5.31
0.65
4.22
3.47
0.00
1.39
8.04
2.21
5.84
4.49
5.31
0.50
4.22
3.47
0.00
1.70
8.74
106
209
345
274
619
150
142
65
275
1150
Wisconsin (WI)
County
Total
OHU
Columbia
Crawford
Dane
Dodge
Door
Douglas
Dunn
Eau Claire
Florence
Fond du Lac
Forest
Grant
Green
Green Lake
Iowa
Iron
Jackson
Jefferson
Juneau
Kenosha
Kewaunee
La Crosse
Lafayette
Langlade
Lincoln
Manitowoc
Marathon
Marinette
Marquette
Menominee
Milwaukee
Monroe
Oconto
Oneida
Outagamie
Ozaukee
Pepin
Pierce
Polk
Portage
Price
Racine
Richland
Rock
Rusk
St. Croix
Sauk
Sawyer
Shawano
Sheboygan
Taylor
Trempealeau
Vernon
20439
6677
173484
31417
11828
17808
14337
35822
2133
36931
4043
18465
13212
7703
8764
3083
7070
28205
9696
56057
7623
41599
6211
8452
11721
32721
47702
17585
5986
1345
377729
15399
13979
15333
60530
30857
2759
13015
16254
25040
6564
70819
7118
58617
6095
23410
21644
6640
15815
43545
7529
10747
10825
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
86
90
645
109
26
143
102
233
35
83
46
84
26
45
39
19
64
75
59
145
37
109
22
71
73
112
248
159
44
10
2683
299
69
101
82
48
25
51
93
143
99
221
72
205
64
82
93
77
105
156
122
86
396
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.42
1.35
0.37
0.35
0.22
0.80
0.71
0.65
1.64
0.22
1.14
0.45
0.20
0.58
0.45
0.62
0.91
0.27
0.61
0.26
0.49
0.26
0.35
0.84
0.62
0.34
0.52
0.90
0.74
0.74
0.71
1.94
0.49
0.66
0.14
0.16
0.91
0.39
0.57
0.57
1.51
0.31
1.01
0.35
1.05
0.35
0.43
1.16
0.66
0.36
1.62
0.80
3.66
0.51
2.13
0.26
0.30
0.32
1.76
0.80
1.99
1.64
0.41
1.14
0.50
0.30
0.78
0.55
0.91
1.16
0.37
0.59
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.35
1.19
0.85
0.39
0.64
1.38
0.74
0.74
0.00
3.53
0.57
0.77
0.14
0.18
0.91
0.54
0.62
0.79
1.51
0.20
1.37
0.27
1.26
0.36
0.80
1.16
0.62
0.31
2.17
0.80
4.33
0.62
0.92
0.17
0.26
0.43
1.03
0.40
0.52
1.45
0.34
0.84
0.61
NA
0.48
0.43
0.73
0.75
0.52
0.37
0.10
0.81
0.19
0.49
0.88
0.75
0.26
0.61
0.93
0.26
NA
0.45
1.10
0.57
0.76
0.25
0.20
1.08
0.24
0.41
0.95
1.59
0.14
0.76
0.26
1.31
0.87
0.65
0.75
0.74
0.19
1.63
0.95
1.65
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
1.32
4.50
1.50
1.81
0.77
1.23
2.05
2.69
6.07
1.09
2.42
1.13
0.88
1.79
1.91
0.00
2.69
0.55
1.66
0.83
1.84
0.57
0.70
2.15
2.51
2.16
2.20
1.98
3.70
0.60
2.10
11.17
1.54
1.03
0.61
0.00
4.12
0.63
2.14
1.65
5.77
0.98
4.00
1.35
2.96
0.37
1.78
3.27
1.76
1.06
7.63
4.40
14.51
2.51
6.30
1.40
0.75
1.26
4.67
3.00
15.07
6.07
2.60
2.42
0.82
0.58
2.56
2.28
0.00
3.97
1.70
1.39
0.00
2.26
3.05
0.70
2.88
5.19
2.26
2.26
3.44
3.70
0.60
0.00
23.02
2.22
1.63
1.32
0.00
4.12
1.49
2.32
4.12
5.77
0.79
6.83
0.54
2.85
0.81
4.58
3.27
2.58
3.44
10.31
4.40
18.37
239
203
1340
232
49
268
184
1021
55
159
70
210
65
182
53
45
170
150
131
504
65
484
58
151
125
261
713
230
115
36
6003
1529
114
221
199
71
100
75
168
474
195
550
209
483
141
215
380
136
221
515
397
231
1958
181
Wisconsin (WI)
County
Vilas
Walworth
Washburn
Washington
Waukesha
Waupaca
Waushara
Winnebago
Wood
182
Total
OHU
9066
34522
6604
43842
135229
19863
9336
61157
30135
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
44
114
54
107
270
111
62
192
68
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.49
0.49
0.35
0.33
0.25
0.42
0.82
0.99
0.85
0.24
0.33
0.11
0.20
0.13
0.22
0.56
0.59
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.47
0.31
0.42
0.52
0.23
0.43
0.25
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
1.38
1.28
1.78
0.44
0.40
1.53
3.02
0.71
0.50
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
1.38
1.15
2.31
2.11
0.00
2.62
3.04
1.20
2.12
Total
population
in OHULP
74
190
71
204
659
238
184
378
212
WYOMING (WY)
Ranking
2000
33
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
1011
Wyoming (WY)
County
Total
OHU
Albany
Big Horn
Campbell
Carbon
Converse
Crook
Fremont
13269
4312
12207
6129
4694
2308
13545
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
0.52
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
68
31
61
19
21
4
192
OHULP
1990
897
Percent of
OHULP
1990
0.53
Rural
OHULP
2000
590
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
OHULP
Rural OHULP
above 65
years in
(as % of
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.51
0.72
0.50
0.31
0.45
0.17
1.42
1.35
0.72
0.79
0.32
0.63
0.17
2.74
0.00
NA
1.87
0.00
NA
NA
1.30
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
0.92
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
609
1.08
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.69
2.42
0.52
0.25
0.00
0.00
3.69
0.00
2.42
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
6.26
78
84
153
66
80
NA
430
183
Wyoming (WY)
County
Total
OHU
Goshen
Hot Springs
Johnson
Laramie
Lincoln
Natrona
Niobrara
Park
Platte
Sheridan
Sublette
Sweetwater
Teton
Uinta
Washakie
Weston
5061
2108
2959
31927
5266
26819
1011
10312
3625
11167
2371
14105
7688
6823
3278
2624
184
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
0
20
6
91
22
156
17
49
33
62
18
51
67
10
2
11
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
population
above 65
OHULP
Rural OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
0.00
0.95
0.20
0.29
0.42
0.58
1.68
0.48
0.91
0.56
0.76
0.36
0.87
0.15
0.06
0.42
0.00
1.00
0.45
0.06
0.49
1.89
1.68
0.51
1.18
0.97
0.76
1.46
0.99
0.37
0.20
0.77
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.13
1.98
0.37
NA
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
0.00
0.00
1.80
0.82
2.71
1.37
4.83
1.98
0.51
1.38
3.86
1.80
1.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
3.37
7.25
4.83
3.34
0.76
2.59
3.86
9.20
4.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
23
8
186
47
266
42
154
45
64
65
110
129
35
NA
13
PUERTO RICO (PR)
Ranking
2000
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
2000
2
65640
Puerto Rico (PR)
Municipio
Total
OHU
Adjuntas
Aguada
Aguadilla
Aguas Buenas
Aibonito
Añasco
Arecibo
Arroyo
Barceloneta
Barranquitas
Bayamón
Cabo Rojo
Caguas
Camuy
Canóvanas
Carolina
Cataño
5895
13520
22087
9240
8408
9398
34245
6166
7508
8663
73693
17114
46937
11457
13446
63546
9638
Percent of
OHULP (as
% of OHU)
2000
5.20
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
226
1380
1068
474
270
657
2034
366
1221
317
1294
1067
1573
500
1099
1820
363
OHULP
1990
NA
Percent of
OHULP
1990
NA
Rural
OHULP
2000
5673
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
OHULP
above 65
(as % of
years in
(as % of
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
3.83
10.21
4.84
5.13
3.21
6.99
5.94
5.94
16.26
3.66
1.76
6.23
3.35
4.36
8.17
2.86
3.77
3.82
0.00
0.00
6.81
3.96
7.95
8.07
18.03
19.54
5.85
0.00
7.81
3.86
9.97
13.83
0.00
0.00
5.44
10.47
5.32
7.20
4.80
7.13
6.51
6.79
13.84
4.87
1.95
5.09
3.73
4.17
8.75
3.05
3.46
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 2000
8.47
Rural
OHULP
1990
Percent of
Rural
OHULP (as
% of Rural
OHU) 1990
NA
NA
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
4.42
12.44
6.15
5.29
4.45
9.56
7.75
7.45
20.64
3.89
2.76
9.43
5.38
5.74
10.37
5.15
5.03
3.85
0.00
0.00
4.79
5.20
11.00
10.82
22.73
0.00
8.73
0.00
10.84
3.47
14.02
24.05
0.00
0.00
651
4014
2770
1251
773
1754
5232
1189
3537
959
3829
2849
4535
1230
3286
5097
1284
185
Puerto Rico (PR)
Municipio
Cayey
Ceiba
Ciales
Cidra
Coamo
Comerío
Corozal
Culebra
Dorado
Fajardo
Florida
Guánica
Guayama
Guayanilla
Guaynabo
Gurabo
Hatillo
Hormigueros
Humacao
Isabela
Jayuya
Juana Díaz
Juncos
Lajas
Lares
Las Marías
Las Piedras
Loíza
Luquillo
Manatí
Maricao
Maunabo
Mayagüez
Moca
Morovis
Naguabo
Naranjito
Orocovis
Patillas
Peñuelas
Ponce
Quebradillas
Rincón
Río Grande
Sabana Grande
Salinas
San Germán
San Juan
San Lorenzo
San Sebastián
Santa Isabel
Toa Alta
Toa Baja
Trujillo Alto
186
Total
OHU
15634
5750
6047
13204
11749
6311
11264
699
10887
14176
3962
7291
14225
7209
34068
11741
12685
5820
19293
14970
5083
14954
11933
9007
10974
3564
11145
9597
6573
15266
2013
3994
34742
12712
8801
7872
8932
7083
6576
7698
59607
8280
5147
16430
8865
10184
12809
163462
13138
14970
6781
19420
30453
24160
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
405
206
395
493
584
197
526
40
584
447
235
672
1036
642
860
542
670
231
927
945
259
1271
634
630
814
332
365
495
271
653
127
418
2221
778
541
329
378
366
559
763
4198
418
340
1010
535
759
689
6358
1102
1356
533
582
1440
1251
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
2.59
3.58
6.53
3.73
4.97
3.12
4.67
5.72
5.36
3.15
5.93
9.22
7.28
8.91
2.52
4.62
5.28
3.97
4.80
6.31
5.10
8.50
5.31
6.99
7.42
9.32
3.28
5.16
4.12
4.28
6.31
10.47
6.39
6.12
6.15
4.18
4.23
5.17
8.50
9.91
7.04
5.05
6.61
6.15
6.03
7.45
5.38
3.89
8.39
9.06
7.86
3.00
4.73
5.18
5.74
6.47
7.03
5.03
5.65
3.49
6.04
5.72
0.00
4.35
6.99
10.15
9.87
9.47
25.00
5.85
5.97
15.79
9.23
8.70
6.87
11.31
0.00
9.74
11.42
12.52
5.32
13.64
4.39
3.47
7.78
14.05
11.50
9.89
8.53
6.90
0.00
6.39
11.07
22.95
8.98
5.61
0.00
2.55
9.74
7.60
5.15
0.00
7.99
10.96
4.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.41
4.76
6.44
4.09
6.67
1.36
7.14
NA
5.13
3.16
8.85
8.19
8.57
9.40
2.49
3.78
6.10
3.27
4.00
8.95
5.82
9.93
8.28
5.80
6.22
10.24
3.82
5.51
7.38
5.35
7.59
8.95
6.17
7.16
6.42
5.52
6.27
5.38
8.25
7.20
5.88
7.19
5.27
6.91
6.17
8.86
5.07
3.22
9.25
9.29
10.70
5.13
5.20
4.02
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
Total
population
in OHULP
3.69
5.11
8.27
4.61
5.75
3.54
5.87
4.00
8.01
4.44
7.30
10.67
9.58
11.87
4.79
8.30
6.19
6.18
6.94
7.68
5.82
11.12
6.29
9.22
8.56
13.06
3.58
6.30
6.07
5.64
7.29
12.39
8.08
7.53
8.03
4.51
5.68
6.29
10.42
12.79
10.18
6.80
7.45
7.93
7.59
9.27
7.61
6.09
10.47
10.87
9.56
5.40
7.30
10.12
6.58
11.82
7.69
5.40
6.23
2.82
7.96
4.00
0.00
0.00
9.02
6.31
10.98
14.15
50.00
10.42
8.80
0.00
0.00
5.43
6.43
12.79
0.00
13.48
11.90
17.29
9.19
13.64
3.45
3.10
9.95
22.09
17.15
14.54
10.40
7.87
0.00
6.83
12.03
32.26
11.46
5.18
0.00
3.02
13.04
11.16
6.18
0.00
8.81
12.26
5.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
1067
595
1195
1547
1695
556
1444
106
1693
1045
575
1981
2826
1652
2489
1318
1875
674
2670
2756
917
3844
1651
1553
2481
920
1303
1482
838
1981
354
1225
5905
2199
1794
910
1013
967
1664
2775
12979
1143
1029
2713
1566
2264
1715
17663
3339
3607
1383
1912
4306
3552
Puerto Rico (PR)
Municipio
Utuado
Vega Alta
Vega Baja
Vieques
Villalba
Yabucoa
Yauco
Total
OHU
11207
11894
19758
3319
7722
12242
15012
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing
Facilities
(OHULP)
666
1268
1199
230
572
877
1687
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Rural
population
OHULP
above 65
OHULP
(as % of
(as % of
years in
OHU)
Rural OHU)
OHULP
5.94
5.71
5.36
10.66
4.17
10.80
6.07
12.23
11.05
6.93
14.94
10.08
7.41
12.25
9.25
7.16
14.55
8.31
11.24
21.07
9.96
Percent of
OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
7.14
14.26
8.44
7.43
9.49
9.18
16.15
Percent of
Rural OHULP
below
poverty level
in 1999
7.35
7.74
15.56
10.00
15.12
14.51
24.26
Total
population
in OHULP
1833
3987
3494
644
2069
2875
5292
187
American Samoa (AS)
American Samoa (AS)
District/Village
Eastern District
Eastern District, Rural
Manu'a District
Manu'a District, Rural
Rose Island
Rose Island, Rural
Swains Island
Swains Island, Rural
Western District
Western District, Rural
Village
Aasu Village
Afao Village
Afono Village
Agugulu Village
188
Housing Units (HU)
Means of Sewage Disposal
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
(OHULP)
OHU)
Level in 1999
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
4111
382
323
323
0
0
8
8
5610
551
1829
74
7
7
0
0
0
0
1956
3
2069
290
302
302
0
0
7
7
3359
493
213
18
14
14
0
0
1
1
295
55
3845
339
273
273
0
0
7
7
5224
491
1397
146
86
86
0
0
6
6
2070
262
36.33
43.07
31.50
31.50
0.00
0.00
85.71
85.71
39.62
53.36
1028
113
59
59
0
0
4
4
1657
209
57
23
109
8
1
0
0
0
51
22
104
7
5
1
5
1
50
22
90
7
31
9
40
2
62.00
40.91
44.44
28.57
28
8
31
1
Total
HU
American Samoa (AS)
District/Village
Alao Village
Alega Village
Alofau Village
Amaluia Village
Amanave Village
Amaua Village
Amouli Village
Anua Village
Aoa Village
Aoloau Village
Asili Village
Atu'u Village
Aua Village
Auasi Village
Aumi Village
Aunu'u Village
Auto Village
Avaio Village
Faga'alu Village
Faga'itua Village
Fagali'i Village
Fagamalo Village
Faganeanea Village
Fagasa Village
Fagatogo Village
Failolo Village
Faleasao Village
Faleniu Village
Fatumafuti Village
Futiga Village
Ili'ili Village
Lauli'i Village
Leloaloa Village
Leone Village
Leusoali'i Village
Luma Village
Maia Village
Malaeimi Village
Malaeloa/Aitulagi Village
Malaeloa/Ituau Village
Maloata Village
Mapusagafou Village
Masausi Village
Masefau Village
Matu'u Village
Mesepa Village
Nua Village
Nu'uuli Village
Ofu Village
Olosega Village
Onenoa Village
Pagai Village
Housing Units (HU)
Total
HU
104
13
86
41
58
23
76
11
96
162
36
59
386
19
37
88
45
9
204
90
48
14
31
137
359
21
37
315
19
105
470
155
93
600
34
58
30
189
93
87
5
285
35
73
71
80
28
905
75
62
29
20
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
9
3
1
0
0
7
0
8
3
1
0
53
22
0
1
59
4
0
130
12
0
0
3
35
319
0
1
91
6
3
91
2
9
29
0
2
1
85
1
0
0
17
0
2
6
69
0
727
0
0
0
1
92
9
83
36
50
16
71
3
74
145
33
4
334
17
34
25
36
8
64
73
39
13
27
91
33
17
34
212
10
99
354
145
76
547
34
56
26
90
90
85
5
249
22
66
64
9
27
136
71
58
29
18
3
1
2
5
8
0
5
0
19
16
3
2
30
2
2
4
5
1
10
5
9
1
1
11
7
4
2
12
3
3
25
8
8
24
0
0
3
14
2
2
0
19
13
5
1
2
1
42
4
4
0
1
93
13
84
36
52
20
74
9
83
136
34
58
347
17
35
79
42
9
195
82
44
9
29
130
351
20
29
308
16
104
423
153
81
577
32
52
25
179
90
86
4
272
32
68
70
73
26
868
63
48
26
20
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
OHU)
Level in 1999
(OHULP)
52
4
30
18
38
7
28
3
56
58
14
23
126
7
13
40
12
1
66
28
27
5
8
53
96
13
5
171
6
43
136
69
27
170
10
8
8
87
33
38
2
129
21
33
4
26
12
332
15
34
17
11
55.91
30.77
35.71
50.00
73.08
35.00
37.84
33.33
67.47
42.65
41.18
39.66
36.31
41.18
37.14
50.63
28.57
11.11
33.85
34.15
61.36
55.56
27.59
40.77
27.35
65.00
17.24
55.52
37.50
41.35
32.15
45.10
33.33
29.46
31.25
15.38
32.00
48.60
36.67
44.19
50.00
47.43
65.63
48.53
5.71
35.62
46.15
38.25
23.81
70.83
65.38
55.00
41
2
19
12
29
6
20
2
44
46
11
16
86
5
11
31
6
0
48
17
24
4
6
44
74
11
3
146
4
30
103
54
16
129
7
7
3
76
25
26
2
116
14
24
3
20
8
259
13
22
11
7
189
American Samoa (AS)
District/Village
Pago Pago Village
Pava'ia'i Village
Poloa Village
Sa'ilele Village
Se'etaga Village
Sili Village
Si'ufaga Village
Swains Village
Tafuna Village
Taputimu Village
Tula Village
Utulei Village
Utumea East Village
Utumea West Village
Vailoatai Village
Vaitogi Village
190
Housing Units (HU)
Total
HU
742
401
37
18
44
5
22
8
1488
100
81
158
13
9
159
243
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
579
47
0
0
0
0
3
0
1174
8
3
148
0
1
3
12
140
319
34
16
43
4
19
7
268
84
73
7
13
7
147
217
23
35
3
2
1
1
0
1
46
8
5
3
0
1
9
14
708
357
36
18
41
2
22
7
1362
97
75
141
13
8
158
228
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
OHU)
Level in 1999
(OHULP)
226
150
24
12
15
2
4
6
446
44
35
32
5
2
62
96
31.92
42.02
66.67
66.67
36.59
100.00
18.18
85.71
32.75
45.36
46.67
22.70
38.46
25.00
39.24
42.11
169
117
18
7
12
2
2
4
348
36
29
24
4
2
52
75
Guam (GU)
Guam (GU)
Housing Units (HU)
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
(OHULP)
OHU)
Level in 1999
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
47677
2946
34067
1559
12443
1255
1167
132
38769
2309
3411
321
8.80
13.90
944
102
1126
1041
1072
1379
312
1459
1083
325
841
902
857
945
957
1048
1347
247
1012
484
293
301
843
791
180
65
15
17
63
352
576
29
489
49
61
1
19
9
15
2
95
23
3
51
10
5
995
906
938
751
272
1167
1004
292
697
756
464
81
95
6
2
14
177
123
21
90
71
3
8.14
10.49
0.64
0.27
5.15
15.17
12.25
7.19
12.91
9.39
0.65
8
23
0
0
1
100
24
3
28
12
1
County/Census
Designated Place
Total
HU
Guam
Guam, Rural
Census Designated
Place
Agana Heights
Agat
Andersen AFB
Apra Harbor
Asan
Astumbo
Barrigada
Barrigada Heights
Chalan Pago
Dededo
Finegayan Station
191
Guam (GU)
County/Census
Designated Place
Hagåtña
Inarajan
Latte Heights
Maina
Maite
Mangilao
Merizo
Mongmong
Nimitz Hill Annex
Ordot
Piti
Santa Rita
Santa Rosa
Sinajana
Talofofo
Tamuning
Tiyan
Toto
Umatac
Yigo
Yona
192
Housing Units (HU)
Total
HU
403
148
410
246
303
2463
390
1207
64
1079
212
311
144
578
556
4735
2
592
115
1841
532
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
374
64
347
71
295
1675
324
964
61
477
177
254
140
562
174
4478
0
318
94
1032
355
27
76
60
171
8
742
57
226
3
563
28
47
3
14
342
230
2
253
16
753
158
2
8
3
4
0
46
9
17
0
39
7
10
1
2
40
27
0
21
5
56
19
276
134
373
231
171
1883
341
958
14
876
185
279
130
518
497
3550
2
504
104
1515
470
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
OHU)
Level in 1999
(OHULP)
13
23
30
19
2
127
40
62
1
71
24
37
8
37
89
116
0
83
18
111
62
4.71
17.16
8.04
8.23
1.17
6.74
11.73
6.47
7.14
8.11
12.97
13.26
6.15
7.14
17.91
3.27
0.00
16.47
17.31
7.33
13.19
5
6
3
3
0
23
9
18
0
22
6
6
1
5
27
23
0
18
6
35
18
Northern Mariana Islands (MP)
193
Northern Mariana Islands (MP) continued
No. Mariana Is. (MP)
Municipality/Census
Designated Place
Northern Islands
Municipality
Northern Islands
Municipality, Rural
Rota Municipality
Rota Municipality, Rural
Saipan Municipality
Saipan Municipality, Rural
Tinian Municipality
Tinian Municipality, Rural
Census Designated
Place
Capital Hill
Chalan Kanoa
Dandan
Garapan
Gualo Rai
194
Housing Units (HU)
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
OHU)
Level in 1999
(OHULP)
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
3
2
1
0
1
0
0.00
0
3
981
981
15527
299
1055
236
2
93
93
8251
89
253
53
1
776
776
6052
151
695
134
0
112
112
1224
59
107
49
1
757
757
12507
213
790
155
0
97
97
2004
58
200
52
0.00
12.81
12.81
16.02
27.23
25.32
33.55
0
45
45
1224
33
113
24
458
1035
648
1307
348
158
902
60
1166
182
279
80
505
120
153
21
53
83
21
13
358
856
543
979
305
23
116
108
82
58
6.42
13.55
19.89
8.38
19.02
11
75
68
41
31
Total
HU
No. Mariana Is. (MP)
Municipality/Census
Designated Place
Kagman
Koblerville
Navy Hill
San Antonio
San Jose (Saipan)
San Jose (Tinian)
San Roque
San Vicente
Songsong
Susupe
Tanapag
Housing Units (HU)
Total
HU
946
901
310
888
254
529
319
827
364
467
482
HU using
public sewer
HU using
septic tank
or cesspool
HU using
other
means
Total
(OHU)
62
493
273
606
196
159
202
175
63
398
222
575
359
35
270
48
331
95
604
291
49
167
309
49
2
12
10
39
22
48
10
20
93
653
783
221
743
213
383
247
669
298
393
397
Percent
OHULP with
of OHULP
Householder
(as % of
below Poverty
Total
OHU)
Level in 1999
(OHULP)
207
92
21
53
46
85
40
113
19
53
110
31.70
11.75
9.50
7.13
21.60
22.19
16.19
16.89
6.38
13.49
27.71
113
56
13
31
29
53
29
74
11
38
66
195
U.S. Virgin Islands (VI)
Housing Units (HU)
HU using
HU using
septic tank
other
HU using
public sewer
or cesspool
means
Island/Census
Designated Place
Total
HU
St. Croix Island
St. Croix Island, Rural
St. John Island
St. John Island, Rural
St. Thomas Island
St. Thomas Island, Rural
Census Designated
Place
Anna's Retreat CDP
Charlotte Amalie town
Charlotte Amalie East
CDP
Charlotte Amalie West
CDP
Christiansted town
Cruz Bay CDP
Frederiksted town
23782
2850
2390
856
24030
947
11758
503
371
106
13748
171
11177
2103
1855
654
9514
733
847
244
164
96
768
43
19455
2063
1735
642
19458
755
939
57
167
99
656
11
4.83
2.76
9.63
15.42
3.37
1.46
3080
5195
2456
4859
528
237
96
99
2643
4292
43
218
1.63
5.08
1072
999
69
4
951
34
3.58
2291
1459
1529
512
1955
1347
265
464
317
75
1197
42
19
37
67
6
1921
1116
1090
327
74
77
67
59
3.85
6.90
6.15
18.04
196
Total
(OHU)
Total
(OHULP)
Percent of OHULP
(as % of OHU)
Island/Census
Designated Place
Frederiksted Southeast
CDP
Grove Place CDP
Total
HU
1154
1073
Housing Units (HU)
HU using
HU using
HU using
septic tank
other
or cesspool
means
public sewer
748
706
389
341
17
26
Total
(OHU)
986
980
Total
(OHULP)
Percent of OHULP
(as % of OHU)
52
70
5.27
7.14
197
Glossary of Terms
Alaska Native race/ethnic categories
Self-identification among people of Alaska Native descent. These are the five detailed Alaska Native
race and ethnic categories used in tabulating data in the Census 2000:
Alaska Athabaskan
Aleut
Eskimo
Tlingit-Haida
All other tribes
American Indian tribe/Selected American Indian categories
Self-identification among people of American Indian descent. Many American Indians are members
of a principal tribe or group empowered to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of the individual
members. Census 2000 data are available for 36 tribes or selected American Indian categories:
Apache
Houma
Pueblo
Blackfeet
Iroquois
Puget Sound Salish
Cherokee
Kiowa
Seminole
Cheyenne
Latin American (Aztec,
Shoshone
Chickasaw
Inca, Mayan, etc.)
Sioux
Chippewa
Lumbee
Tohomo O’Odham
Chocktaw
Menominee
Ute
Colville
Navajo
Yakama
Comanche
Osage
Yaqui
Cree
Ottawa
Yuman
Creek
Paiute
All other
Crow
Pima
Delaware
Potawatomi
These tribes were selected based on a 1990 population threshold of 7,500.
Related term: Race
Asian
Self-identification among people of Asian descent. There are 17 detailed Asian race and ethnic
categories used in for tabulating data in the Census 2000:
Asian Indian
Bangladeshi
Cambodian
Chinese, except Taiwanese
Filipino
Hmong
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Malaysian
Pakistani
Sri Lankan
Taiwanese
Thai
Vietnamese
Other Asian
Related term: Race
Borough
A county equivalent in Alaska, a minor civil division in New York, and an incorporated place in
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
199
Central place
The core incorporated place(s) or a census designated place of an urban area, usually consisting of
the most populous place(s) in the urban area plus additional places that qualify under Census Bureau
criteria. If the central place is also defined as an extended place, only the portion of the central place
contained within the urban area is recognized as the central place.
Census
A complete enumeration, usually of a population, but also of businesses and commercial
establishments, farms, governments, and so forth.
Census (decennial)
The census of population and housing, taken by the Census Bureau in years ending in 0 (zero).
Article I of the Constitution requires that a census be taken every ten years for the purpose of
reapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives.
Census area
The statistical equivalent of a county in Alaska. Census areas are delineated cooperatively by the state
of Alaska and the Census Bureau for statistical purposes in the portion of Alaska not within an
organized borough.
Census county division (CCD)
A subdivision of a county that is a relatively permanent statistical area established cooperatively by
the Census Bureau and state and local government authorities. Used for presenting decennial census
statistics in those states that do not have well-defined and stable minor civil divisions that serve as
local governments.
Census designated place (CDP)
A statistical entity, defined for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines,
comprising a densely settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place,
but is locally identified by a name. CDPs are delineated cooperatively by state and local officials and
the Census Bureau, following Census Bureau guidelines. Beginning with Census 2000 there are no
size limits.
Related term: Incorporated place
Central city
The largest city of a Metropolitan area (MA). Central cities are a basis for establishment of an MA.
Additional cities that meet specific criteria also are identified as central cities. In a number of
instances, only part of a city qualifies as central, because another part of the city extends beyond the
MA boundary.
Related term: Metropolitan area (MA)
City
A type of incorporated place in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In 23 states and the District
of Columbia, some or all cities are not part of any Minor Civil Division (MCD), and the Census
Bureau also treats these as county subdivisions, statistically equivalent to MCDs.
Related terms: Incorporated place, Minor civil division (MCD)
200
Comunidad
Represents a census designated place that is not the representing governmental center of the
municipio in Puerto Rico. There are no incorporated places in Puerto Rico. For Census 2000 there
are no minimum population requirements. For 1990 comunidades had to have at least 1,000 people.
Related term: Municipio
Confidentiality
The guarantee made by law (Title 13, United States Code) to individuals who provide census
information regarding nondisclosure of that information to others.
For US Code, Title 13, see
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_t.html#title_13_u.s._code
Consolidated city
An incorporated place that has combined its governmental functions with a county or sub-county
entity but contains one or more other incorporated places that continue to function as local
governments within the consolidated government.
Related term: Incorporated place
Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA)
A geographic entity defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget for use by federal
statistical agencies. An area becomes a CMSA if it meets the requirements to qualify as a
metropolitan statistical area, has a population of 1,000,000 or more, if component parts are
recognized as primary metropolitan statistical areas, and local opinion favors the designation.
Related terms: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA), Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA)
County and equivalent entity
The primary legal subdivision of most states. In Louisiana, these subdivisions are known as parishes.
In Alaska, which has no counties, the county equivalents are boroughs, a legal subdivision, and
census areas, a statistical subdivision. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia), there
are one or more cities that are independent of any county and thus constitute primary subdivisions
of their states. The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area is considered
equivalent to a county for statistical purposes. In Puerto Rico, municipios are treated as county
equivalents.
Related term: Borough
County subdivision
A legal or statistical division of a county recognized by the Census Bureau for data presentation. The
two major types of county subdivisions are census county divisions and minor civil divisions.
Related terms: Minor civil division (MCD), Unorganized territory
201
Householder
The person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought, or rented. If
there is no such person present, any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the
householder for the purposes of the census.
Housing unit
A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as
separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate
living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the
building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. For
vacant units, the criteria of separateness and direct access are applied to the intended occupants
whenever possible.
Hispanic or Latino origin
For Census 2000, American Community Survey: People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or
"Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed
on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire—"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"—as well as
those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin can be viewed as the
heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or
ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race.
1990 Census of Population and Housing: A self-designated classification for people whose origins
are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Caribbean, or those
identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, etc. Origin can be viewed as
ancestry, nationality, or country of birth of the person or person’s parents or ancestors prior to their
arrival in the United States.
Income
"Total income" is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wages, salary, commissions,
bonuses, or tips; self-employment income from own non-farm or farm businesses, including
proprietorships and partnerships; interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income
from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security
Income (SSI); any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office;
retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and any other sources of income received regularly such
as Veterans' (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony.
Incorporated place
A type of governmental unit incorporated under state law as a city, town (except the New England
states, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village and having
legally prescribed limits, powers, and functions.
Related terms: Census designated place (CDP), Place
202
Living quarters
A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms or a single
room occupied as separate living quarters or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living
quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any people in
the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.
Related term: Housing unit
Long form
The decennial census questionnaire, sent to approximately one in six households for the 1980, 1990,
and 2000 censuses, contains all of the questions on the short form, as well as additional detailed
questions relating to the social, economic, and housing characteristics of each individual and
household. Information derived from the long form is referred to as sample data, and is tabulated
for geographic entities as small as the block group level in 1980, 1990, and 2000 census data
products.
Related terms: Census (decennial), Sample data, Short form
Metropolitan
Refers to those areas surrounding large and densely populated cities or towns.
Metropolitan area (MA)
A collective term, established by the federal Office of Management and Budget, to refer to
metropolitan statistical areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and primary metropolitan
statistical areas.
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
statistical agencies, based on the concept of a core area with a large population nucleus, plus adjacent
communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Qualification
of an MSA requires the presence of a city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or the presence of an
Urbanized Area (UA) and a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). The
county or counties containing the largest city and surrounding densely settled territory are central
counties of the MSA. Additional outlying counties qualify to be included in the MSA by meeting
certain other criteria of metropolitan character, such as a specified minimum population density or
percentage of the population that is urban. MSAs in New England are defined in terms of minor
civil divisions, following rules concerning commuting and population density.
Related terms: Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA), Primary metropolitan statistical
area (PMSA)
Minor civil division (MCD)
A primary governmental and/or administrative subdivision of a county, such as a township,
precinct, or magisterial district. MCDs exist in 28 states and the District of Columbia. In 20 states,
all or many MCD’s are general-purpose governmental units: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Most of these MCD’s are legally designated as towns or townships.
Related Terms: Census county division (CCD), County subdivision, Unorganized territory
203
Municipio
Primary legal divisions of Puerto Rico. These are treated as county equivalents.
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories
Self-identification among people of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander descent. These are the 12
detailed Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories used in displaying data from
Census 2000:
Polynesian:
Micronesian:
Melanesian:
Native Hawaiian
Guanamanian or
Fijian
Samoan
Chamorro
Other Melanesian
Tongan
Other Micronesian
Other Pacific Islander
Other Polynesian
Nonmetropolitan
The area and population not located in any Metropolitan area (MA).
Occupied housing unit
A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or group of
people living in it at the time of enumeration.
Parish
A type of governmental unit that is the primary legal subdivision of Louisiana, similar to a county in
other states.
Place
A concentration of population either legally bounded as an incorporated place, or identified as a
Census Designated Place (CDP) including comunidades and zonas urbanas in Puerto Rico.
Incorporated places have legal descriptions of borough (except in Alaska and New York), city, town
(except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), or village.
Related terms: Census designated place (CDP), City, Comunidad, Incorporated place, Town, Zona
urbana
Plumbing facilities
The data on plumbing facilities were obtained from both occupied and vacant housing units.
Complete plumbing facilities include: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a
bathtub or shower. All three facilities must be located in the housing unit.
Population
All people, male and female, child and adult, living in a given geographic area.
Population density
Total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States,
state, county, place) divided by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square
miles. Density is expressed as both "people (or housing units) per square kilometer" and "people (or
housing units) per square mile" of land area.
Poverty
Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a
set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If
204
the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then
the family or unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level."
For a detailed description of how the poverty level is determined, see:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html
Related term: Income
Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA)
statistical agencies. If an area meets the requirements to qualify as a metropolitan statistical area and
has a population of one million or more, two or more PMSAs may be defined within it if statistical
criteria are met and local opinion is in favor. A PMSA consists of one or more counties (county
subdivisions in New England) that have substantial commuting interchange. When two or more
PMSAs have been recognized, the larger area of which they are components then is designated a
consolidated metropolitan statistical area.
Related terms: Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA), Metropolitan statistical area
(MSA)
Puerto Rico
The U.S. Census Bureau treats the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the equivalent of a state for
data presentation purposes. Puerto Rico is divided into legal government municipios, which are
statistically equivalent to counties.
Race
Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they
most closely identify.
For Census 2000:
In 1997, after a lengthy analysis and public comment period, the Federal Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) revised the standards for how the Federal government would collect and present
data on race and ethnicity.
These new guidelines revised some of the racial categories used in 1990 and preceding censuses and
allowed respondents to report as many race categories as were necessary to identify themselves on
the Census 2000 questionnaire. The full report is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/race.pdf.
How the new guidelines affect Census 2000 results and the comparison with data from 1990:
Census 2000 race data are not directly comparable with data from 1990 and previous censuses. See
the Census 2000 Brief, "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin" at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf.
205
Race Alone categories (6):
Includes the minimum five race categories required by OMB, plus the ‘some other race alone’
included by the Census Bureau for Census 2000, with the approval of OMB.
White alone
Black or African-American alone
American Indian or Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Race Alone or in combination categories (63):
There are other tabulations where ‘race alone or in combination’ are shown. These tabulations
include not only persons who marked only one race (the ‘race alone’ category) but also those who
marked that race and at least one other race. For example, a person who indicated that she was of
Filipino and African-American background would be included in the African-American alone or in
combination count, as well as in the Asian alone or in combination count. The alone or in
combination totals are tallies of responses, rather than respondents. So the sum of the race alone or
in combination will add to more than the total population.
Some tabulations show the number of persons who checked ‘two or more races’.
In some tables, including the first release of Census 2000 information, data is tabulated for 63
possible combinations of race:
6 race alone categories
15 categories of 2 races (e.g., White and African American, White and Asian, etc.)
20 categories of 3 races
1 category of 6 races
=63 possible combinations
Some tables show data for seven race categories: the six (mutually exclusive) major race-alone
categories (White, African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific Islander, and some other race) and a ‘two or more races’ category. The sum of
these seven categories adds to 100 percent of the population.
Related terms: Alaska Native race/ethnic categories, American Indian tribe/Selected American
Indian categories, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander race and ethnic categories,
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
Rural
Territory, population and housing units not classified as urban. “Rural” classification cuts across
other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas.
Related terms: Urban, Metropolitan
Sample data
Population and housing information collected from the census long form for a one in six sample of
households in the United States and Puerto Rico, and on a continuous basis for selected areas in the
American Community Survey.
Related terms: Census (decennial), Long form
206
Short Form
The decennial census questionnaire, sent to approximately five of six households for the 1980, 1990,
and 2000 censuses. For Census 2000, the questionnaire asked population questions related to
household relationship, sex, race, age and Hispanic or Latino origin and housing questions related to
tenure, occupancy, and vacancy status. The 1990 short form contained a question on marital status.
The questions contained on the short form also are asked on the long form, along with additional
questions.
Related terms: Census (decennial), Long form
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
For Census 2000 and the American Community Survey: People who identify with the terms
"Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino
categories listed on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire—"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or
"Cuban"—as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin
can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the
person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their
origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race.
For 1990 Census of Population and Housing:
A self-designated classification for people whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking
countries of Central or South America, the Caribbean, or those identifying themselves generally as
Spanish, Spanish-American, etc. Origin can be viewed as ancestry, nationality, or country of birth of
the person or person’s parents or ancestors prior to their arrival in the United States.
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino people may be of any race.
Listed below are the 28 Hispanic or Latino categories used in Census 2000 tabulations:
South American:
Other Hispanic or Latino:
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Argentinian
Spaniard
Cuban
Bolivian
Spanish
Dominican Republic
Chilean
Spanish American
Central American:
Colombian
All other Hispanic or
Costa Rican
Ecuadorian
Latino
Guatemalan
Paraguayan
Honduran
Peruvian
Nicaraguan
Uruguayan
Panamanian
Venezuelan
Salvadoran
Other South American
Other Central American
Summary File 3 (SF 3)
This file presents data on the population and housing long form subjects such as income and
education. It includes population totals for ancestry groups. It also includes selected characteristics
for a limited number of race and Hispanic or Latino categories. The data are available for the U.S.,
regions, divisions, states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, block groups,
metropolitan areas, American Indian and Alaska Native areas, tribal subdivisions, Hawaiian home
lands, congressional districts, and Zip Code Tabulation Areas.
Related term: Long form
207
Town
A type of minor civil division in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin and a type of
incorporated place in 30 states and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
Related term: County subdivision
Unorganized Territory
Occur in 10 minor civil division (MCD) states where portions of counties are not included in any
legally established MCD or independent incorporated place. The pieces are recognized as one or
more separate county subdivisions for statistical data presentation purposes.
Urban
All territory, population and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of more than 2,500
persons outside of urbanized areas. "Urban" classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in
metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas.
Related terms: Metropolitan, Rural
Urban Area
Collective term referring to all areas that are urban. For Census 2000, there are two types of urban
areas: urban clusters and urbanized areas.
Urban Cluster
A densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. This is new for
Census 2000.
Urbanized area (UA)
An area consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density of at
least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum residential population
of at least 50,000 people. The Census Bureau uses published criteria to determine the qualification
and boundaries of UAs.
Usual residence
The living quarters where a person spends more nights during a year than any other place.
Related term: Living quarters
Usual residence elsewhere
A housing unit temporarily occupied at the time of enumeration entirely by people with a usual
residence elsewhere is classified as vacant. The occupants are classified as having a "Usual residence
elsewhere" and are counted at the address of their usual place of residence.
Village
A type of incorporated place in 20 states and American Samoa. The Census Bureau treats all villages
in New Jersey, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and some villages in Ohio as county subdivisions.
Zona Urbana
Represents a census designated place that is the governmental center of each municipio in Puerto
Rico. There are no incorporated places in Puerto Rico.
Related term: Municipio
208
The RCAP Network
To determine what services are available
in your community, contact:
Great Lakes RCAP
WSOS Community Action Commission
109 South Front Street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
(419) 334-8911
www.wsos.org
Midwest RCAP
Midwest Assistance Program
212 Lady Slipper Avenue NE
Post Office Box 81
New Prague, Minnesota 56071
(952) 758-4334
www.map-inc.org
Northeast RCAP
RCAP Solutions
218 Central Street
Winchendon, Massachusetts 01475
(978) 297-5300
www.rcapsolutions.org
Southeast RCAP
Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project
145 Campbell Avenue SW
Post Office Box 2868
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868
(540) 345-1184
www.sercap.org
Southern RCAP
Community Resource Group
Post Office Box 1543
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
(479) 443-2700
www.crg.org
Western RCAP
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201
West Sacramento, California 95691
(916) 447-2854
www.rcac.org
RCAP, Inc.
1522 K Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-1273
www.rcap.org
Funded by
Technical Assistance and Training Grant, United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service,
Water and Environmental Programs
Community Capacity Development for Safe Drinking Water,
United States Enviromental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Solid Waste Management Grant, United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Rural Utilities Service, Water and Environmental Programs
Small Community Wastewater Project, Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), Office of Wastewater Management
(SPINE -- To be dropped in)

Still Living Without the Basics in the 21st Century

Transcription

Similar documents

Vita revised latest APA style - Michigan State University Department

Untitled - Dr. Michael A. Waibel

energy efficiency