Military housing in the United States is split between government-provided homes, privatized installation housing, and private-sector rentals near bases. The latest figures below cover Department of Defense housing programs, the 2024 Basic Allowance for Housing process, the 2024 Active Duty Spouse Survey, and the Government Accountability Office’s military-housing study. Dates and geographies matter: some figures describe the United States, some distinguish CONUS from OCONUS, and spouse results are from 2024.
Table of contents
- How service members are housed
- Basic Allowance for Housing statistics
- Privatized family housing
- Housing inventory by military service
- Housing availability and local rents
- Where military spouses live
- Housing location and spouse outcomes
How service members are housed
About one-third of service members in the United States live in on-base housing, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO-25-106208). On-base housing is provided by the government at generally no cost to the service member. The remaining two-thirds live off base in local communities; the Department of Defense says the private sector houses these service members and their families near installations (GAO-25-106208).
This split helps explain why military housing statistics include both installation inventory and private-market measures. A service member may receive housing on an installation, live in privatized housing, or rent in the surrounding community while using a housing allowance. The figures are not interchangeable: the one-third and two-thirds estimates describe where service members live, while inventory counts describe units or beds managed through specific programs.
The GAO found that counties with a higher military population were associated with higher median rents and higher rent-to-income ratios (GAO-25-106208). That finding describes an association across counties, not a single national rent premium or a forecast for every military community. It does, however, show why housing pressure around installations can affect both military households and nearby residents.
Basic Allowance for Housing statistics
The Department of Defense collected rental housing cost data annually for approximately 300 military housing areas in the United States during the 2024 BAH process. The rate-setting process used six housing profiles in each military housing area (DOD 2024 BAH release). These profiles are part of the method used to measure local rental costs across different household and rank circumstances.
The 2024 BAH rates increased an average of 5.4%. The Department of Defense estimated that $27.9 billion would be paid to approximately one million service members under the 2024 rates (DOD 2024 BAH release). The 5.4% figure is an average increase, so it does not mean every housing area or pay grade received the same adjustment.
The 2024 BAH cost-sharing element remained 5% of the national average housing cost by pay grade. Member cost-sharing amounts ranged from $85 to $194 per month (DOD 2024 BAH release). The allowance therefore combined local rental-cost measurement with a standardized member contribution element.
The Department of Defense also stated that an individual who maintains uninterrupted BAH eligibility in a location will not see the BAH rate decrease if measured housing costs fall (DOD 2024 BAH release). This protection applies to uninterrupted eligibility in the location; it should not be read as a guarantee that every future move or eligibility change will preserve the same rate.
Privatized family housing
The Department of Defense had privatized 99% of its family housing inventory in the United States, representing more than 200,000 units, according to the FY2024 Family Housing Improvement Fund budget (DoD FY2024 FHIF budget). The Military Housing Privatization Initiative, or MHPI, was authorized by Congress in 1996.
There were 78 current MHPI family-housing projects executed under the program. MHPI projects typically use 50-year ground leases, and most project agreements include one 25-year option period (DoD FY2024 FHIF budget). These terms describe the structure of the partnerships rather than a promise that every project has identical lease language.
The same budget document reports that MHPI generated more than $32 billion in private development while leveraging $4 billion of Department of Defense investment. It also reports that MHPI eliminated nearly 142,000 inadequate homes and an associated $20 billion maintenance backlog (DoD FY2024 FHIF budget). These are program-level historical figures; they do not independently establish the current condition of every privatized home.
Funding requests also varied by year. The Family Housing Improvement Fund request was $3.829 million for fiscal year 2022, $6.442 million for fiscal year 2023, and $6.611 million for fiscal year 2024 (DoD FY2024 FHIF budget). The FY2024 Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund administrative request was $496,000, compared with $399,000 in FY2022 and $494,000 in FY2023 (DoD FY2024 MUHIF budget).
In financial reporting, the Department of Defense recorded $225.8 million in direct payments to MHPI partnerships in FY2024, up from $221.8 million in FY2023. Indirect third-party BAH payments from members living in privatized housing totaled $4,773.3 million in FY2024 and $4,425.1 million in FY2023 (DoD FY2024 AFR Note 25). Direct payments and indirect BAH payments are separate categories and should not be combined as one measure of housing cost.
Housing inventory by military service
The following figures are privatized housing inventory counts from the DoD Office of Inspector General report DODIG-2025-045. FH means family-housing units, while UH means unaccompanied-housing beds. CONUS means the continental United States; OCONUS means outside the continental United States.
| Service | CONUS FH | OCONUS FH | Total privatized FH | CONUS privatized UH beds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Army | 76,957 | 9,594 | 86,551 | 2,411 |
| Navy | 37,512 | 0 | 37,512 | 6,075 |
| Marine Corps | 20,667 | 2,576 | 23,243 | 0 |
| Air Force | 46,399 | 4,612 | 51,011 | 0 |
| Space Force | 3,496 | 0 reported | 3,496 | 0 |
| All services | 185,031 | 16,782 | 201,813 | 8,486 |
Across all services, privatized family housing totaled 201,813 units: 185,031 CONUS units and 16,782 OCONUS units (DODIG-2025-045). Privatized unaccompanied housing totaled 8,486 beds. Only the Navy and Army had privatized unaccompanied housing, and none of the services had OCONUS privatized unaccompanied housing (DODIG-2025-045).
The Army’s total privatized family-housing inventory was 86,551 units, including 9,594 OCONUS units. The Navy had 37,512 privatized family-housing units, all listed as CONUS, and 6,075 CONUS privatized unaccompanied-housing beds. The Marine Corps had 23,243 family-housing units, including 2,576 OCONUS units. The Air Force had 51,011 family-housing units, including 4,612 OCONUS units. The Space Force had 3,496 CONUS family-housing units (DODIG-2025-045).
The DoD Office of Inspector General said the military departments had legal agreements with 14 landlords for privatized military housing (DODIG-2025-045). That landlord count is a count of legal agreements reported in the review, not a count of individual housing communities or properties.
Housing availability and local rents
The GAO received 68 completed local-government surveys for its military-housing study and closed the survey on February 26, 2024. The questionnaire contained 13 multiple-choice questions and 12 open-ended questions; GAO excluded 15 partially completed surveys from its analysis (GAO-25-106208). GAO also conducted site visits at seven installations and held 15 discussion groups with service members at those visits.
Roughly one-quarter of about 200 installations with military housing offices had expressed concerns about housing availability and affordability (GAO-25-106208). This is an installation-level signal, not a percentage of all military households. In the local-government survey, 40 of 68 respondents said housing costs increased because of the military population, while 39 said job opportunities increased because of the installation’s military presence (GAO-25-106208).
One GAO example concerned Mountain Home Air Force Base. Housing officials there said service members’ housing allowances had increased over 100% since 2017, while civilian locality pay increased only 2% since 2017. Service members at Mountain Home often sought housing about 50 miles away in Boise, Idaho (GAO-25-106208). These figures describe that example and should not be generalized to every installation.
Where military spouses live
The 2024 Active Duty Spouse Survey found that 74% of active duty spouses lived off base in either military or civilian housing. Another 7% were geo-baching for reasons unrelated to deployment (2024 ADSS). Among spouses living apart, 35% said the member spouse lived in on-base military housing, 8% said the member spouse lived in off-base military housing, and 57% said the member spouse lived in civilian housing (2024 ADSS).
Among spouses living off base, 62% lived less than 30 minutes from a military base or installation. Another 28% lived 30 minutes to less than one hour away, 6% lived one to two hours away, and 4% lived more than two hours away (2024 ADSS). The distance distribution gives a more precise picture than the simple on-base/off-base split: most off-base spouses remained relatively close to an installation, but a minority faced substantially longer travel times.
The survey also reported differences by service group and geography. Spouses living off base in the OCONUS group were 70% most likely to live less than 30 minutes from a base or installation. In the Navy group, 30% were most likely to live 30 minutes to less than one hour away. In the Marine Corps group, 11% were most likely to live one to two hours away and 8% were most likely to live more than two hours away (2024 ADSS). These are subgroup percentages, not estimates of all off-base spouses.
Housing location and spouse outcomes
Housing location coincided with different reported family outcomes in the 2024 Active Duty Spouse Survey. Satisfaction with the military way of life was 54% among spouses living on base and 45% among spouses living off base. The shares who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied were 24% and 29%, respectively; dissatisfaction was 22% on base and 26% off base (2024 ADSS housing-location summary). The off-base dissatisfaction figure rose from 22% in 2021 to 26% in 2024.
In 2024, 54% of spouses living on base favored staying on active duty, compared with 47% of spouses living off base. The shares favoring leaving active duty were 29% and 34%, respectively (2024 ADSS housing-location summary). These survey results show differences by housing location, but they do not prove that housing location caused the difference.
Financial responses were not uniformly better for one group. Sixty-one percent of spouses living off base said their financial condition was comfortable, compared with 56% of spouses living on base. The shares saying their condition was not comfortable were 14% off base and 17% on base (2024 ADSS housing-location summary).
Use of nutrition assistance resources was also reported by housing location. Eighty-nine percent of spouses living off base and 81% living on base were not using any nutrition assistance resource. Among spouses living on base, 13% used WIC, 8% used the National School Lunch Program, and 5% used the National School Breakfast Program. The corresponding off-base shares were 6%, 4%, and 3% (2024 ADSS housing-location summary).
Labor-market measures show another important difference. In 2024, 72% of spouses living off base were in the civilian labor force, compared with 63% of spouses living on base; the all-active-duty-spouse share was 69%. In 2021, the corresponding labor-force shares were 67% off base and 55% on base (2024 ADSS housing-location summary).
Among spouses in the civilian labor force, the 2024 unemployment rate was 17% off base and 27% on base. The 2021 rates were 19% off base and 31% on base. After the last permanent change of station, 12% of spouses living on base sought but did not find employment, compared with 9% living off base. Forty-three percent on base did not seek employment after the move, compared with 39% off base, while 8% on base found work in under a month compared with 13% off base (2024 ADSS housing-location summary).