Housing Stability Score
39
/100
Composite Score • Higher is stronger
Scores use a consistent four-component framework built from public, reproducible data sources.
Housing-first durability lens
County Profile
Lower Connecticut River Valley County
Lower Connecticut River Valley County profile describes structural housing sustainability conditions for local residents using standardized national methodology.
Trend Direction
Stable
Trend direction is based on latest available multi-period score movement.
Score Components
Every location includes standardized component evaluation so cross-location comparison stays structurally consistent.
Affordability Stability
Evaluates whether housing costs align sustainably with local income over time using rent burden, price-to-income, and cost growth relative to wages.
Component Score: 35 / 100
State: 63 / 100 percentile (above-average relative stability)
National: 35 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
Market Volatility
Measures housing price consistency and resistance to boom-and-bust cycles that can destabilize long-term resident outcomes.
Component Score: 38 / 100
State: 38 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
National: 38 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
Supply Pressure
Tracks whether housing availability keeps pace with demand through inventory, construction pace, and local supply balance conditions.
Component Score: 86 / 100
State: 75 / 100 percentile (above-average relative stability)
National: 86 / 100 percentile (very strong relative stability)
Ownership Sustainability
Assesses long-term ownership viability through expense escalation, tax burden pressure, insurance overlap, and distress indicators.
Component Score: 25 / 100
State: 88 / 100 percentile (very strong relative stability)
National: 25 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
Comparative Context
State Comparison
State benchmark: 51 / 100 percentile (higher is more stable), placing this location near the middle of comparable places in this state.
National Comparison
National benchmark: 39 / 100 percentile (higher is more stable), placing this location below most comparable places nationwide.
Methodology Summary
Scoring uses public, reproducible county-level datasets including ACS, BLS LAUS, FHFA HPI, and Census housing estimates, applied through the same framework across affordability stability, market volatility, supply pressure, and ownership sustainability.
Snapshot Date: 2023-12-30 • Data Update Status: Succeeded • 2026-02-24 14:00 UTC
County Data Refresh: Succeeded (2026-02-24 02:27 UTC)City Data Refresh: Succeeded (2026-02-24 13:35 UTC)HUD County Refresh: Succeeded (2026-02-24 14:00 UTC)County Score Update: Succeeded (2026-02-24 14:00 UTC)State/National Score Update: Succeeded (2026-02-24 14:00 UTC)City Score Update: Succeeded (2026-02-24 14:00 UTC)
Data Coverage
County coverage reflects local observations vs modeled imputations for this score date.
Observed Local
11
Inherited Inputs
0
Imputed Inputs
3
Coverage Share
78.6%
Total model inputs this run: 14