Skip to content
Neighborhood · Ranked #79,124 of 84,120 nationally

Gum Springs Eviction Risk: Lower , Fort Hunt

Tract 51059415500 · Fairfax County, VA · pop 6,337 · neighborhood within 0.6 mi

Here is how census tract 51059415500, in the Gum Springs neighborhood of Fort Hunt, looks to a landlord: a 4.8/10 eviction-risk score (Moderate tier) across a population of 6,337. On the national scale it ranks #58,637 of 84,120 for landlord eviction difficulty.

Rent eats 30% or more of income for 31% of renter households, a high level, and 11% are severely burdened at 50% or more. Average gross rent is $824 monthly, set against $165,417 in average yearly household income, roughly 6% of income at the averages. Renters make up 21% of occupied homes.

Risk score
1.5
Lower
Confidence 100% · 1–10 scale
Household mix · 100 hh
Burdened renters 7% Stable renters 15% Owners 78%
Tract context
Occupied units2,317
Renter share21.2%
SVI overall0.49
Poverty rate9.2%
Median income$165,417

Percentile rank

Higher percentile = riskier than more peers.
Within neighborhood
50 th percentile
Rank, 50th percentileLowHigh
#1 of 1 tracts In Gum Springs
Moderate
Within parent city
100 th percentile
Rank, 100th percentileLowHigh
#1 of 5 tracts In Fort Hunt
Very High
Within county
64 th percentile
Rank, 64th percentileLowHigh
#99 of 274 tracts In Fairfax County
Elevated
Within state
22 th percentile
Rank, 22nd percentileLowHigh
#1,710 of 2,186 tracts In Virginia
Low
Geographic context

Risk heat across Fort Hunt and the region

Centroid at 38.7407, -77.0704 · click any tract to drill in

Why Gum Springs scores 1.5

9 axes · 1 = landlord-friendly
Local political climate
Inherited from Fort Hunt
8.3
Regional political climate
2024 county presidential margin
7.1
State political climate
Virginia legislature & governorship
3.2
Economic stress
9.2% poverty · this tract
2.3
Supply constraint
$824 rent vs county FMR
1.0
Rent control risk
Inherited from Fort Hunt
4.5
Eviction process difficulty
State law sets the calendar
2.6
Tenant organizing strength
Inherited from Fort Hunt
2.3
Housing court bias
Inherited from Fort Hunt
3.3

How Gum Springs compares

Risk score vs. parent city, county, state.
Gum Springs risk score vs. parent city / county / stateThis tract: 1.51.5This tracttract 415500Fort Hunt: 3.33.3Fort Huntparent cityCounty: 1.51.5Countyavg tract in countyState: 3.03.0Stateavg tract in state
CDC Social Vulnerability Index

SVI percentile: 49

CDC/ATSDR 2022. Higher = more vulnerable. National percentile across 84k tracts.

Eviction filings

Court-record eviction history

Court-validated eviction filings collected from county clerks and consolidated by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. Filing rate is filings per 100 renter households.1

Historic baseline (2000–2018)

  • 97Total filings over 4 yrs
  • 2.98%Avg annual filing rate
  • 4.4%Peak (2016)
  • 32Filings in 2016 (latest validated)
Filings by year 2011 to 2016
Year-by-year eviction filings in tract 510594155002011: 17 filings (1.96/100 renter HHs)2012: 18 filings (2.08/100 renter HHs)2013: 30 filings (3.46/100 renter HHs)2016: 32 filings (4.40/100 renter HHs)
Filings climbed 88% over the past 4 months.
CDC PLACES 2023 · health & economic stress

Eviction-adjacent indicators

Crude prevalence of conditions linked to housing loss. Source: CDC PLACES (cwsq-ngmh), 2023 model-based small-area estimates.

Analysis

What drives eviction risk in Gum Springs

The heaviest input here is rent-control risk at 4.5/10. That part comes from the wider legal climate rather than the tract itself. Statewide and court-level factors such as eviction-process speed and rent-control exposure are inherited from Fort Hunt, while the economic and supply signals are measured at the tract level.

Set against its neighbors, this tract scores below the Fairfax County average of 5.4 and below the Virginia statewide average of 5.3. Within its own county it reads on the safer side for landlords.

The tract is predominantly White and ranks around the 49th percentile nationally on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, a measure of how exposed residents are to housing and economic shocks. That is a middle-of-the-pack reading for social vulnerability.

In CDC survey modeling, about 7.8% of adults here said they could not pay rent or mortgage at some point in the past year, and 5.2% faced a utility shutoff threat, a common early warning before a filing.

For a landlord, conditions here are middle-of-the-road. Standard screening and prompt, documented notices usually keep cases short.

Frequently asked

About tract 51059415500

Q1

What is the eviction-risk score for census tract 51059415500?

Census tract 51059415500 in the Gum Springs neighborhood scores 1.5/10 (Lower tier). The Eviction Risk Score blends state law, county filing rates, parent-city politics, and tract-specific rent-to-income ratios + poverty signals.
Q2

What is the average rent in tract 51059415500?

Median gross rent is $824/month (ACS 5-year 2023, table B25064). 31% of renter households are cost-burdened.
Q3

What is the poverty rate in tract 51059415500?

9.2% of residents in tract 51059415500 live below the federal poverty line (ACS B17001, 2023). Population: 6,337.
Q4

How socially vulnerable is tract 51059415500?

CDC Social Vulnerability Index ranks this tract in the 49th percentile nationally. Sub-themes: socioeconomic 26th, household 83th, minority 56th, housing 51th.
Q5

Is tract 51059415500 considered part of Gum Springs?

Yes. Per Census Bureau 2020 Block Assignment Files, the plurality of blocks in tract 51059415500 fall within Gum Springs (neighborhood centroid within 0.6 miles, OSM data).
Q6

How many evictions are filed each year in tract 51059415500?

Princeton Eviction Lab recorded 97 eviction filings across 4 validated years in tract 51059415500 (2000-2018). The average annual filing rate is 2.98% of renter households, peaking at 4.4% in 2016. Source: Eviction Lab tract-validated 2024 release.
Q7

What share of households in tract 51059415500 struggle to pay rent?

About 7.8% of adults in this tract reported housing insecurity (could not pay rent or mortgage in the past 12 months), per the CDC PLACES 2023 model-based small-area estimate. 5.2% also reported utility shutoff threats, a frequent precursor to eviction filings.
Q8

How does tract 51059415500 compare to Fort Hunt overall?

Tract 51059415500 scores 1.5/10, lower than the parent city of Fort Hunt at 3.3/10. City-scale signals (state law, local rent controls, court bias) are inherited from Fort Hunt; what makes this tract different are its tract-specific economic stress and supply-constraint sub-scores.
Sibling tracts

Highest-risk tracts in Fort Hunt

Top eight tracts in Fort Hunt ranked by composite eviction-risk score.

Related