NBOA Housing Provider Survey
Survey examining COVID-19 pandemic impacts and recovery in Chicago’s rental housing market, documenting rent collection trends, Emergency Rental Assistance effectiveness, vacancy recovery, rental arrearages, and operational challenges among housing providers representing approximately 30,000 rental units across Chicago neighborhoods.
Respondent Profile
Survey respondents collectively own and manage approximately 30,000 rental housing units throughout the Chicago metropolitan area, representing a substantial increase from previous NBOA survey samples and providing broader insight into Chicago’s neighborhood rental housing market dynamics during the COVID-19 recovery period.
Portfolio Size Distribution
Residential Properties Owned or Managed
| Property Count Range | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| 1-5 properties | 47% |
| 6-10 properties | 17% |
| 11-20 properties | 13% |
| 21-50 properties | 13% |
| Greater than 50 properties | 10% |
Residential Units Owned or Managed
| Unit Count Range | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| 0-20 units | 41% |
| 21-50 units | 23% |
| 51-100 units | 8% |
| 101-250 units | 9% |
| 251-500 units | 8% |
| 501-1,000 units | 6% |
| Greater than 1,000 units | 5% |
Small-scale operators dominate the survey sample: Nearly three-quarters (72%) of respondents own or manage 100 units or fewer, and 95% are property owners rather than third-party management companies. This demographic represents the individual landlords and small businesses that provide the majority of Chicago’s neighborhood rental housing.
Geographic Distribution
Survey respondents own and manage properties across all Chicago neighborhoods and suburban areas, with the highest concentration on the North Side (51%) and in City South neighborhoods (26%).
| Chicago Area | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| City North | 51% |
| City South | 26% |
| City Northwest | 25% |
| City West | 15% |
| Suburban West | 13% |
| Suburban North | 12% |
| City Southwest | 10% |
| Suburban South | 10% |
| City Downtown | 9% |
| Suburban Northwest | 6% |
| Suburban Southwest | 6% |
Note: Respondents were allowed to select multiple neighborhoods, so percentages sum to more than 100%.
Rent Collection Recovery
September 2021 rent collection data reveals continued improvement from pandemic lows, with 55% of respondents collecting greater than 95% of expected rent—the highest level since NBOA began tracking this metric in September 2020. However, 45% still experience collection shortfalls, and 20% report collection rates below 85%, indicating ongoing financial stress nearly 18 months into the pandemic.
Ongoing Collection Challenges
45% of respondents collected 95% or less of September rent — nearly half of Chicago housing providers continue experiencing collection shortfalls 18 months into the pandemic, despite improving trends.
20% collected 85% or less — one in five housing providers face collection rates that typically result in monthly operating losses, as property expenses generally consume 75-85% of gross rental income.
Historical Collection Trends
Year-over-year tracking from September 2020 through September 2021 demonstrates steady improvement in collection performance, with the percentage collecting >95% of rent increasing from 46% to 55%.
| Collection Rate | Sept 2020 | Dec 2020 | Mar 2021 | Jun 2021 | Sept 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greater than 95% | 46% | 37% | 46% | 49% | 55% |
| 86%-95% | 25% | 27% | 28% | 21% | 25% |
| 76%-85% | 11% | 17% | 12% | 12% | 9% |
| 51%-75% | 10% | 10% | 7% | 9% | 6% |
| 0%-50% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 9% | 5% |
9-percentage-point improvement over 12 months: The proportion of housing providers achieving >95% collection rates increased from 46% in September 2020 to 55% in September 2021, indicating gradual market recovery. However, the persistence of 20% experiencing severe collection challenges demonstrates uneven recovery patterns across Chicago neighborhoods.
Geographic Collection Disparities
North Side & Suburban North
South & West Sides
17-percentage-point geographic collection gap persists: North Side properties maintain significantly higher stabilized collection rates (64% achieving >95%) compared to South and West Side properties (47%), demonstrating that pandemic recovery remains geographically uneven across Chicago neighborhoods.
Detailed Collection Rate Comparison (September 2021)
| Collection Rate | North Side & Suburban North | South & West Sides |
|---|---|---|
| Greater than 95% | 64% | 47% |
| 86%-95% | 29% | 23% |
| 76%-85% | 4% | 14% |
| 51%-75% | 3% | 7% |
| 0%-50% | 0% | 9% |
Rental Arrearages
Long-term rental arrearages—unpaid back rent owed by current and former tenants for 180 days or more—represent accumulated financial damage from 18 months of pandemic-era collection challenges. Two-thirds of respondents face potential losses if current arrearages must be written off as uncollectible.
Annual Gross Income At Risk
Respondents estimated the percentage of annual gross income they would lose if all current arrearages had to be written off as uncollectible.
| Percentage of Annual Gross Income at Risk | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| No arrearages / Not applicable | 33% |
| 1%-5% of annual income | 26% |
| 6%-10% of annual income | 16% |
| 11%-20% of annual income | 14% |
| 21%-30% of annual income | 5% |
| Greater than 30% of annual income | 6% |
67% face potential arrearage losses: Two-thirds of survey respondents report current arrearages that, if written off, would result in losses ranging from 1% to over 30% of annual gross income. For providers in the 21%-30% and >30% categories (11% combined), these losses represent existential financial threats.
Long-Term Arrearage Patterns
The survey tracked tenants who are more than 180 days (six months) in arrears with rent payments—a critical threshold indicating long-term non-payment unlikely to be recovered without legal proceedings or assistance programs.
| Percentage of Tenants 180+ Days in Arrears | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| All tenants current / Not applicable | 37% |
| 0% of tenants 180+ days in arrears | 19% |
| 1%-24% of tenants | 33% |
| 25%-49% of tenants | 3% |
| 50%-74% of tenants | 3% |
| 75%-99% of tenants | 2% |
| 100% of tenants | 1% |
| Don’t know | 1% |
Geographic Comparison of Long-Term Arrearages
| Tenants 180+ Days in Arrears | North Side & Suburban North | South & West Sides |
|---|---|---|
| All tenants current | 40% | 36% |
| 0% of tenants 180+ days behind | 24% | 14% |
| 1%-24% of tenants | 30% | 36% |
| 25%-49% of tenants | 2% | 4% |
| 50%-74% of tenants | 3% | 4% |
| 75%-99% of tenants | 1% | 4% |
| 100% of tenants | 0% | 1% |
Long-term arrearages concentrated on South and West Sides: While 64% of North Side respondents report all tenants current or 0% with long-term arrears, only 50% of South/West Side respondents report the same status. The 9% of South/West Side properties with 50%+ of tenants 180+ days in arrears face particularly acute foreclosure risk.
Emergency Rental Assistance
The Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program represents a critical federal intervention to address pandemic-era rental arrearages. Survey data reveals both the program’s reach and its limitations, with 59% of respondents participating but 64% reporting that ERA funds failed to cover the full cost of accumulated rental delinquencies.
ERA Program Participation and Effectiveness
59% applied or their tenants applied for Emergency Rental Assistance — indicating broad program participation among Chicago housing providers and tenants.
64% did not receive enough ERA to cover all delinquencies — despite program participation, nearly two-thirds report that assistance funds failed to fully address accumulated arrearages since the pandemic onset.
40% still awaiting ERA decisions — a substantial proportion remain in funding limbo, unable to clear arrearages or plan financial recovery while applications remain pending.
ERA Funding Levels
Among the 59% who applied for ERA, respondents reported widely varying funding outcomes. Multiple responses were allowed, as some providers received partial funding for certain tenants while others remained pending.
| ERA Funding Status | Percentage of Applicants |
|---|---|
| Partially funded (some applications accepted) | 43% |
| Awaiting decision on all or some applications | 40% |
| Partially funded (some tenants applied, others did not) | 37% |
| Fully funded for all ERA applications | 15% |
| Denied funding for all applications | 9% |
Only 15% received full funding: Among providers who applied for Emergency Rental Assistance, fewer than one in six received complete funding for all applications. The combination of partial funding (80% combined) and pending decisions (40%) demonstrates significant program implementation challenges and funding gaps.
ERA Application and Receipt Patterns
Average ERA Months Applied For
| 4-6 months | 40% |
| 1-3 months | 24% |
| 10-12 months | 16% |
| 7-9 months | 11% |
| 13-15 months | 10% |
Average ERA Months Actually Received
| 4-6 months | 48% |
| 1-3 months | 34% |
| 7-9 months | 6% |
| 10-12 months | 8% |
| 13-15 months | 4% |
ERA Impact on Delinquency Levels
Survey respondents reported their portfolio delinquency levels before and after receiving ERA funds, demonstrating the program’s impact on reducing but not eliminating arrearages.
| Delinquency Level | Before ERA | After ERA |
|---|---|---|
| 0% to 5% | 25% | 33% |
| 6% to 10% | 46% | 20% |
| 11% to 20% | 6% | 19% |
| 21% to 30% | 7% | 6% |
| Greater than 30% | 3% | 6% |
ERA reduced but did not eliminate arrearages: The percentage of providers with 0-5% delinquency increased from 25% to 33% after ERA receipt, demonstrating program effectiveness. However, 67% still maintain delinquency levels above 5% after ERA, and the >30% delinquency category doubled, indicating that for some providers, ERA funds arrived too late to prevent severe arrearage accumulation.
Why Providers Did Not Apply for ERA
Of the 38% who did not apply for ERA:
- 36% reported tenants had not applied — making the housing provider ineligible for ERA under program requirements
- 3% learned about ERA through this survey — indicating gaps in program outreach and awareness
Vacancy Recovery
Vacancy rates demonstrate substantial recovery from pandemic peaks, with 39% of respondents reporting zero vacant units in September 2021—a seven-percentage-point improvement from September 2020 and the highest full-occupancy rate in the survey’s 12-month tracking history.
Historical Vacancy Trends
| Vacancy Level | Sept 2020 | Dec 2020 | Mar 2021 | Jun 2021 | Sept 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No vacant units | 32% | 33% | 34% | 31% | 39% |
| 1%-5% vacant | 26% | 27% | 30% | 33% | 31% |
| 6%-10% vacant | 21% | 19% | 16% | 14% | 14% |
| 11%-25% vacant | 13% | 16% | 15% | 14% | 9% |
| 26%-50% vacant | 5% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% |
| 51%-75% vacant | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Greater than 75% vacant | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 2% |
Steady vacancy recovery over 12 months: The combined 70% reporting 0-5% vacancy in September 2021 represents a four-percentage-point improvement from September 2020 (58%), indicating sustained rental housing demand despite ongoing collection challenges and economic uncertainty.
COVID-19 Operational Impacts
Eighteen months into the pandemic, housing providers reported how COVID-19 collection challenges have affected their 2021 property operations, revealing substantial operational cutbacks with potential long-term consequences for housing quality and neighborhood investment.
Operational Cutbacks and Disinvestment
51% have made fewer capital improvements — over half of housing providers reduced major building investments, risking accelerated property deterioration.
39% have cut repairs and maintenance budgets — deferred routine maintenance compounds over time, leading to more expensive emergency repairs.
21% forced to make personnel cuts — reduced staffing limits responsiveness to tenant needs and building maintenance.
Reported Operational Adjustments
| Operational Impact | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Made fewer capital improvements | 51% |
| Cut repairs & maintenance budget | 39% |
| No effect on operations | 34% |
| Forced to make personnel cuts | 21% |
| Cannot pay property taxes on time or in full | 6% |
| Cannot pay mortgage on time or in full | 3% |
Additional Responses from Providers
- “Raising rents by 5% instead of usual 2%”
- “We have become more strict on application approvals and are less willing to work with applicants”
- “Unable to buy properties and grow portfolio”
- “I will be divesting properties”
- “I had to fund property insurance with my own personal savings”
- “Material and labor costs are skyrocketing”
2022 Projections
Looking ahead to 2022, housing providers anticipate significant rent increases to offset accumulated arrearages and rising costs, while investment sentiment remains negative with only 23% more likely to acquire additional Chicago rental properties.
Anticipated 2022 Rent Increases
| Anticipated Rent Increase Range | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| 1% to 3% increase | 31% |
| 3% to 5% increase | 29% |
| Greater than 5% increase | 11% |
| 0% to 1% increase | 22% |
| Expect rents to decline | 8% |
Rent increases driven by cost recovery: The 40% anticipating rent increases of 3% or more (combining 3-5% and >5% categories) reflect efforts to offset accumulated arrearages, cover rising operating expenses, and restore financial stability after 18 months of pandemic-era challenges.
Investment Sentiment
| Attitude Toward Buying/Selling | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Less likely to buy additional properties | 44% |
| More likely to sell properties | 30% |
| More likely to buy additional properties | 23% |
| Less likely to sell properties | 4% |
Negative investment sentiment threatens housing supply: Only 23% of providers are more likely to acquire additional Chicago rental properties, while 44% are less likely to buy and 30% more likely to sell. This pattern suggests reduced investment in Chicago’s rental housing stock, potentially constraining future housing supply and affordability.
Legislative Impacts
Survey respondents reported on the impacts of recent Chicago ordinance changes, including modifications to the Affordable Requirements Ordinance and the new Accessory Dwelling Unit program, revealing significant concerns about regulatory burdens on new construction and affordable housing production.
Affordable Requirements Ordinance Impact
| Impact on Future Construction Activity | Percentage of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Decrease new construction activity | 48% |
| No change | 31% |
| Other | 19% |
| Increase new construction activity | 2% |
Provider Comments on Affordable Requirements Ordinance
- “Projects failed, redistributed populations failed – how long before they realize this doesn’t work?”
- “It will prevent me from developing in Chicago completely”
- “Find opportunities outside of Cook County”
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance
The new ADU ordinance allows property owners to add accessory dwelling units, but requires every second ADU to be affordable housing.
93% have not submitted ADU applications: Despite the ordinance’s intent to expand housing supply, overwhelming non-participation suggests program design barriers. Of those not participating, 39% cite the affordable unit requirement as impacting their decision.
Survey Conclusions
The October 2021 NBOA Housing Provider Survey documents gradual rental housing market recovery 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, with vacancy rates improving and collection rates reaching 55% stabilized (>95%)—a nine-percentage-point improvement from September 2020. However, 45% still experience collection shortfalls, and 20% face monthly operating losses from collections below 85%.
Emergency Rental Assistance shows limited effectiveness: While 59% participated in ERA programs, only 15% received full funding for all applications. Critically, 64% report that ERA funds failed to cover the full cost of accumulated delinquencies, and 40% remain awaiting funding decisions—leaving substantial arrearages unresolved and recovery incomplete.
Geographic disparities persist and deepen: North Side properties achieve 64% stabilized collections, while South and West Side properties achieve only 47%—a 17-percentage-point gap. More concerning, 9% of South/West Side properties report 0-50% collection rates compared to 0% on the North Side, indicating concentrated foreclosure risk in vulnerable neighborhoods.
Operational cutbacks threaten housing quality: Pandemic-era financial stress drove 51% to reduce capital improvements and 39% to cut maintenance budgets. These deferrals accelerate property deterioration and risk neighborhood-wide housing quality decline. The 6% unable to pay property taxes on time and 3% unable to pay mortgages face potential foreclosure, with impacts concentrated on South and West Sides.
Investment sentiment turns negative: Only 23% of providers are more likely to acquire additional Chicago rental properties, while 44% are less likely to buy and 30% more likely to sell. Combined with reported impacts of the Affordable Requirements Ordinance (48% expect to decrease construction), this pattern suggests reduced investment in Chicago’s rental housing stock, potentially constraining future housing supply.
The survey reveals a rental housing sector experiencing gradual recovery in vacancy rates but persistent collection challenges, incomplete Emergency Rental Assistance relief, mounting operational stress, and negative investment sentiment—particularly among the small-scale providers (72% owning ≤100 units) who constitute the majority of Chicago’s neighborhood rental housing stock.