Upward Communities Research
Cost was named as a housing challenge by 64% of the school employees surveyed across five Central Texas districts, far ahead of every other problem. The median reported housing cost was $1,800 a month, and one respondent in five is already commuting further than they say they can accept.
Cost, and not much else. 64% of the 1,291 respondents who answered named the cost of rent or a mortgage as a challenge with their current housing. Limited availability of housing options came second at 25% and long commute third at 21%.
Poor housing condition and lack of amenities trailed well behind both. This is a useful result for a district because it narrows the problem: staff are not describing housing that is unpleasant or badly located so much as housing they cannot comfortably pay for. A programme that improves quality without changing the price does not answer what they said.
The pressure is not evenly spread. Among the 296 staff respondents who currently live in an apartment, 80% named cost as a challenge, against 59% of everyone else. The employees in the cheapest building type available to them are the ones reporting the most strain.
The median self-reported monthly housing cost was $1,800 among the 832 respondents who gave a figure. 44% reported paying $2,000 or more a month, and roughly three quarters reported paying at least $1,500.
Respondents were told the figure could include taxes, insurance and maintenance, so these should be read as total household housing burden rather than as contract rent. That makes them more useful than a rent comparison for a district thinking about what a staff household actually has to cover each month, and less useful as a direct comparison against market rents.
The question was asked in four of the five districts, so this figure rests on a narrower base than the preference findings. It is also self-reported and unverified. What it establishes is the order of magnitude a housing programme would have to beat to make a difference to the people answering.
Not far, and they are clear about it. Where the maximum-commute question was asked, in three of the five districts, 93% of 864 respondents capped a one-way commute at 30 minutes. Only six respondents in the entire set were willing to go beyond 45 minutes.
Within that, 55% chose a band topping out at 30 minutes and a further 38% said under 15 minutes. Living close to work was very or somewhat important to 86% of the 1,315 who answered that question separately. Proximity is not a preference these employees hold loosely, and it puts a hard geographic constraint on where a housing site can usefully sit.
The median reported one-way commute was 15 minutes, which sounds comfortable until each answer is compared against the limit that same person set. 19% of the 827 respondents who answered both questions already commute longer than their own stated maximum. Roughly one in five is doing something daily that they described as unacceptable, which is a more precise way of saying the housing market has already pushed them past where they wanted to be.
The median self-reported monthly housing cost was $1,800 among the 832 respondents who gave a figure, and 44% reported paying $2,000 or more. Respondents were told the figure could include taxes, insurance and maintenance, so it reflects total household housing burden rather than contract rent.
Cost, by a wide margin. 64% of the 1,291 respondents who answered named the cost of rent or a mortgage. Limited availability drew 25% and long commute 21%. Poor condition and lack of amenities trailed behind both.
93% of the 864 respondents asked capped a one-way commute at 30 minutes, and only six were willing to exceed 45 minutes. 38% said under 15 minutes. Living close to work was very or somewhat important to 86% of the 1,315 who answered that question.
19% of the 827 respondents who answered both the current-commute and maximum-commute questions are already travelling longer than the maximum they set for themselves. The median reported one-way commute across the whole sample was 15 minutes.
No. Respondents chose to take the survey, and people with a housing problem are more likely to answer a housing survey. The cost-burden figures should be read as rates among people who chose to respond, not as district-wide rates. The commute and cost questions were also each asked in only some of the five districts, and every figure here carries its base.
Method and sources
Five Central Texas school districts surveyed their employees between February 2025 and August 2026. Two instruments were used: a staff needs assessment covering current housing, cost, commute, preferences and amenities, and a shorter interest-list registration covering household composition, home size and move-in timing. Both were fielded in English, and two districts fielded in Spanish as well.
The eight source files hold 1,948 response rows. Repeat submissions were matched by email address, or by full name where no email was given, within each district and instrument, keeping the most recent. Removing 172 repeats leaves 1,776 distinct submissions: 1,342 staff assessments and 434 interest-list registrations. 152 rows carry no usable identifier and are retained because they cannot be matched to a duplicate. Every figure on this page excludes repeats.
Coverage differs by question, and it differs most for the questions on this page. Maximum acceptable commute was asked in three of the five districts. Housing cost and housing satisfaction were asked in four. Figures drawn from those narrower bases should not be treated as equivalent to those drawn from the full sample, and each one here is published with the number of responses behind it.
Self-selection is the main caution. People experiencing a housing problem are more likely to complete a housing survey, so the 64% naming cost as a challenge is the share among respondents and not an estimate of the share among all district employees. The same applies to the reported cost figures.
An anonymized version of the harmonized dataset, with a codebook documenting the mapping for every question whose wording differed between districts, is available to public employers and researchers on request. Upward Communities develops workforce housing for public sector employers and has a commercial interest in this subject.
Cost burden and commute are the two figures a board will ask about first, and they are specific to a district and its housing market. We design and field employee housing surveys for public employers, in English and Spanish, and hand back the analysis whichever way the numbers fall.
Get in touch →Upward Communities develops workforce housing for public sector employees. We have a commercial interest in this subject and would rather say so here than have you find out later. Every figure on this page carries the number of responses behind it so you can weigh it yourself.
Monthly updates on Upward Communities.
