An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples

by Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
AN ESTIMATE OF
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SAME-SEX COUPLES

Visit PD&R’s website
www.huduser.org
to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of
HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best
practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800–245–2691) for help
accessing the information you need.

Prepared for
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
Prepared by
M. Davis and Company, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Samantha Friedman (University at Albany, SUNY)
Angela Reynolds
Susan Scovill
Florence R. Brassier
Ron Campbell
McKenzie Ballou
June 2013
AN ESTIMATE OF
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SAME-SEX COUPLES

Acknowledgments
Disclaimer
Many individuals contributed to this study. The work could not
have been completed without the commitment and hard work
of the primary research team members and various administra-
tive and support staff. We thank the following members of the
project team: Gregory M. Herek; Madeline Hoffman; Thomas
Roth and David Paisley of Community Marketing; Robert
Schwemm; Thomas Sexton; Gregory D. Squires; Bryan Tomlin;
and Donald Kahl and John Baker of the Equal Rights Center,
who also made contributions to the design of the project.
A panel of expert advisers made valuable contributions to the
understanding of the housing issues faced by the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender community and of the e-mail testing
approach. We express special thanks to Gregory M. Herek,
Jim McCarthy, Robert Schwemm, and Gregory D. Squires; as
well as Lee Badgett, Roger Doughty, Kate Kendall, Jerry Malitz,
Justin Nelson, Terry Stone, and Laura Young.
We also thank Jennifer A. Stoloff, the project’s Government
Technical Representative from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, for providing significant guidance and support at all
stages.
We offer special thanks to Louisa Elfman of M. Davis and
Company, Inc., for managing the packaging of the report.
The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
iv
Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................. ii
Foreword ............................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................v
Introduction ........................................................................... 1
Fair Housing Laws .......................................................... 1
Paired Testing and Previous Housing Discrimination
Studies ..................................................................... 2
Previous Research on Discrimination Against LGBT
People ...................................................................... 3
Research Design ..................................................................... 5
Hypotheses ..................................................................... 5
E-mail Approach ............................................................. 5
Methodology .......................................................................... 6
Selecting Markets ............................................................ 6
Random Sample of Markets ............................................. 6
Sampling Strategy ........................................................... 7
Conducting the E-mail Testing ........................................ 9
Data Analysis ........................................................................ 12
Gross and Net Measures of Adverse Treatment .............. 12
Findings ............................................................................... 14
National-Level Estimates of Discrimination ................... 14
Estimates of Discrimination by Legislative Jurisdiction .. 16
Estimates of Discrimination by Metropolitan Market
Size ........................................................................ 18
Conclusions and Implications .............................................. 20
Recommendations for Further Study ............................. 21
Technical Appendixes ........................................................... 22
Appendix A. Distribution of Population and Sample
Characteristics Across Proposed Population
Stratum .................................................................. 22
Appendix B. Weighted Results and Standard Errors ...... 23
Appendix C. List of Tester Names ................................. 24
Appendix D. E-mail Text and Subject Lines .................. 24
Appendix E. Data Dictionary ......................................... 27
References ............................................................................ 69
List of Tables
Table E-1. Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples (gross
measures) ............................................................vii
Table E-2. Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples (net
measures) ............................................................vii
Table 1. Number of Paired Tests in Each Stratum ............... 7
Table 2. Outcome Variables.............................................. 14
Table 3. National-Level Gay Male-Heterosexual Tests ....... 14
Table 4. National-Level Lesbian-Heterosexual Tests ............ 15
Table 5. Gay Male-Heterosexual Tests by State Protection ... 16
Table 6. Lesbian-Heterosexual Tests by State Protection ...... 17
Table 7. Gay Male-Heterosexual Net Measures by
Metropolitan Market Size ....................................... 18
Table 8. Lesbian-Heterosexual Net Measures by
Metropolitan Market Size ....................................... 19
List of Figures
Figure E-1. National-Level Adverse Treatment Against
Gay Male and Lesbian Couples, 2011 ................viii

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
v
Executive Summary
This is the first large-scale, paired-testing study to assess hous-
ing discrimination against same-sex couples in metropolitan
rental markets via advertisements on the Internet. The research
is based on 6,833 e-mail correspondence tests conducted in
50 metropolitan markets across the United States from June
through October 2011. For each correspondence test, two e-mails
were sent to the housing provider, each inquiring about the
availability of the unit advertised on the Internet. The only
difference between the two e-mails was the sexual orientation
of the couple making the inquiry. Two sets of correspondence
tests were conducted, one assessing the treatment of gay male
couples relative to heterosexual couples and one assessing the
treatment of lesbian couples relative to heterosexual couples.
This methodology provides the first direct evidence of discrimi-
natory treatment of same-sex couples compared with the treat -
ment of heterosexual couples when searching for rental housing
advertised on the Internet in the United States.
The study finds that same-sex couples experience less favor-
able treatment than heterosexual couples in the online rental
housing market. The primary form of adverse treatment is that
same-sex couples receive significantly fewer responses to e-mail
inquiries about advertised units than heterosexual couples.
Study results in jurisdictions with state-level protections against
housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation un-
expectedly show slightly more adverse treatment of same-sex
couples than results in jurisdictions without such protections.
This study provides an important initial observation of dis-
crimination based on sexual orientation at the threshold stage
of the rental transaction and is a point of departure for future
research on housing discrimination against same-sex couples.
Background
Federal fair housing laws, seeking to ensure equal access to
housing, prohibit housing discrimination based on race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. The
Fair Housing Act, however, does not include sexual orientation
or gender identity as protected classes. Although individual
states and localities increasingly include sexual orientation and
gender identity as protected classes, the fair housing laws of
most states do not provide legal protections for the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
Although various studies have gathered information on preju-
dice and stigma against the LGBT community, little empirical
research has examined housing discrimination based on sexual
orientation. In community-based surveys conducted during the
1980s and 1990s with nonprobability samples, many lesbians
and gay men reported that they had experienced some form of
housing discrimination. In a statewide survey of lesbians and gay
men by the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, between
9 and 16 percent of males (depending on race) and between
5 and 11 percent of females reported housing discrimination
(Gross and Aurand, 1996). In a 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation
survey, 11 percent of the lesbian, gay male, and bisexual respon -
dents said they had personally experienced discrimination in
renting an apartment or buying a home. Another 35 percent
said they had not personally experienced such discrimination
but knew someone who had (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001).
Using data from a nationally representative sample of lesbian,
gay male, and bisexual adults, Herek (2009a) found that 3.8
percent of this population reports experiencing discrimination
in the housing market at least once, with gay men experiencing
the highest rate of housing discrimination (6.5 percent).
Data on perceptions can miss discriminatory actions that are
unknown to prospective renters, however. Recently, three cor-
respondence test studies examined potential adverse treatment
of lesbian and gay male couples, relative to heterosexual couples:
two in Sweden (Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt, 2008;
Ahmed and Hammarstedt, 2009) and one in Canada (Lauster
and Easterbrook, 2011). Ahmed and colleagues did not find
evidence of adverse treatment against lesbians, but they did
find significant differences between gay male couples and
heterosexual couples, with gay male couples receiving fewer
responses and invitations to contact the provider and inspect
the unit. Regarding a “gross” measure of adverse treatment,
Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2009) found that in 12.3 percent
of the correspondence tests (not matched pairs), heterosexual
couples were favored over gay male couples in getting an e-mail
response; the net measure was 11.4 percent and was the only
dimension of adverse treatment that was statistically significant.
No disparities emerged in invitations to contact the provider or
to a showing of the unit. Lauster and Easterbrook (2011) also
found no disparity between lesbian and heterosexual couples
but found that gay male couples are less likely than hetero-
sexual couples to receive positive responses from housing
providers. No correspondence tests, however, were previously
conducted for these groups in the United States.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
vi

Objectives of the Research
The objective of this study is to develop the first national
estimate of the level of housing discrimination based on sexual
orientation; that is, discrimination against same-sex couples—
men partnering with men and women partnering with
women—at the initial stage of the rental housing transaction
in the electronically advertised rental market. The study looks
only at the issue of the sexual orientation of same-sex couples
and not at other issues, such as gender identity.
The study has two unique features. First, it examines the ex-
perience and treatment of same-sex couples in their search for
rental housing, a subject not previously observed on a national
scale. Second, recognizing the increasing use of the Internet
to search for housing, the study uses Internet advertising and
matched-pair e-mails—the very threshold of the housing
transaction—as the point of contact between the tester and
the housing provider. The project also provides a novel, yet
increasingly relevant, approach to a first look at barriers in the
rental housing market for same-sex couples.
Hypotheses
Consistent with the findings of previous research outside the
United States (for example, Ahmed, Andersson, and Ham-
marstedt, 2008; Ahmed and Hammarstedt, 2009; Lauster and
Easterbrook, 2011), we expect that a disparity would exist in
the response of housing providers to inquiries expressing inter-
est in electronically advertised rental housing by heterosexual
and same-sex couples. The main hypotheses for the study
are that (1) same-sex couples will experience more adverse
treatment than heterosexual couples, (2) gay male couples will
experience a greater degree of adverse treatment than lesbian
couples, and (3) same-sex couples will experience lower levels
of adverse treatment in places with state-level housing discrimi-
nation laws inclusive of sexual orientation than in jurisdictions
without such protections.
Methodology
The research adapts the well-established matched-pair testing
methodology, which has been a hallmark of previous U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
housing discrimination studies (HDSs), for use in examining
the electronically advertised rental housing market. A total of
6,833 matched-pair correspondence tests were completed via
e-mail across 50 markets. Tests were divided between those
examining discrimination against gay men (3,424 tests) and
those examining discrimination against lesbians (3,409 tests),
both relative to the treatment of heterosexual couples.
The primary objectives of the study were to obtain data that
would produce (1) nationally representative estimates of
various measures of housing discrimination against same-sex
couples; (2) to the extent possible, estimates of these measures
by whether a state had legislative protections against housing
discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (3) to the
extent possible, estimates of these measures by market size.
A total of 50 markets were randomly selected, proportional
to population size (PPS), from among the 331 metropolitan
statistical areas or primary metropolitan statistical areas, based
on 2000 census definitions. The sampling elements were
one-bedroom rental unit listings advertised on a national
Internet listing site. This site was chosen as the universe from
which to sample the electronic advertisements because the
first contact between the prospective renter and the housing
provider could always occur via e-mail; unlike other electronic
search engines, the site does not require prospective renters
to complete an online registration form asking for their phone
numbers and current addresses; and because the format of
the advertisements on the selected site and the nature of the
contact between providers and prospective tenants is uniform
throughout the country.
For a market to be included in the sample, it had to have
complete coverage on the selected listing site throughout the
metropolitan area being sampled. For example, for the Wash-
ington, D.C. market to be included in our sample, the range
of advertised units had to be spread among different areas
throughout the metropolitan area (for example, Fairfax County,
Virginia; Prince George’s County, Maryland; the District of Co-
lumbia; and so on). If the listing site did not completely cover a
selected market, it was not included in the sampling frame, and
another market was randomly selected using a PPS sampling
approach. This procedure ensured a final sample of 50 markets
with complete coverage.
Each correspondence test involved sending two e-mails to the
housing provider, each inquiring about the availability of the
electronically advertised unit. The only difference between the
two e-mails was whether the couple was same sex or heterosex-
ual. Unfavorable treatment was measured based on the housing
provider’s response to the e-mail, with the central focus being
on whether each tester (1) received a response, (2) received
more than one response, (3) was told the unit was available,
(4) was told to contact the provider, and (5) was invited to
inspect the unit.
Each correspondence test resulted in one of three potential
outcomes: (1) the heterosexual couple is favored over the
same-sex couple, (2) the same-sex couple is favored over the

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
vii
heterosexual couple, or (3) both couples receive equivalent
treatment (equally favored or disfavored). The most straight-
forward measure, the gross measure, is the percentage of tests
in which the heterosexual couple is favored over the same-sex
couple. Gross measures are considered upper bound estimates
of discrimination. Differential treatment might occur for ran-
dom reasons, as well as reasons that have nothing to do with
actual discrimination. For example, the housing provider might
simply have forgotten to reply to the same-sex couple, or per-
haps the unit was truly already rented by the time the same-sex
couple inquired about it. To produce lower bound estimates
of discrimination, net measures are calculated, borrowing from
the methodology of the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study
(HDS2000). Net measures subtract the percentage of same-sex
couples favored on a given outcome from the percentage of
heterosexual couples favored. The true estimate of adverse
treatment against same-sex couples probably lies between the
upper and lower bound estimates.
This report presents results for the five key dimensions of
treatment discussed previously and combines these dimensions
to create a composite measure of treatment. In particular, the
consistency index, adopted from HDS2000, reflects the extent
to which one tester is consistently favored over the other in
the treatment received from housing providers based on their
inquiry e-mails. Tests are classified as “heterosexual favored” if
the heterosexual couple received favorable treatment on at least
one of the five dimensions and the same-sex couple (gay male
or lesbian) received no favorable treatment. Tests are classified
as “gay male or lesbian favored” if the same-sex couple received
favorable treatment on at least one of the five dimensions and
the heterosexual couple received no favorable treatment.
Findings
Same-sex couples are significantly less likely than heterosexual
couples to get favorable responses to e-mail inquiries about
electronically advertised rental housing. Comparing our gross
measures of discrimination, heterosexual couples were favored
over gay male couples in 15.9 percent of tests and over lesbian
couples in 15.6 percent of tests (Table E-1).
The net measures indicate that heterosexual couples are sig nif -
icantly more likely than their gay male and lesbian counterparts
to receive an initial e-mail response (Table E-2). At this prelim-
inary stage of the rental housing transaction, barriers indicate
a rejection of the tester based solely on the sexual orientation
information provided in the e-mail rather than on any charac-
teristics related to qualification for the housing, thus preventing
basic access to rental units.
Key Findings
• Same-sex couples experience discrimination in the online
rental housing market, relative to heterosexual couples
(Figure E-1).
• Adverse treatment is found primarily in the form of same-sex
couples receiving fewer responses to the e-mail inquiry than
heterosexual couples.
• Overall, results in states with legislative protections show
slightly more adverse treatment for gay men and lesbians
than results in states without protections.
• Adverse treatment of same-sex couples is present in all
metropolitan areas, but no clearcut pattern exists in the
magnitude of adverse treatment by metropolitan market size.
• Lower bound measures of discrimination (net measures) re-
veal similar results, although the magnitude of the difference
in treatment between heterosexual and same-sex couples is
less (that is, 2.2 percent for the gay male-heterosexual tests;
1.3 percent for the lesbian-heterosexual tests) than for the
gross measures and is only statistically significant in the gay
male-heterosexual tests.
Table E-1. Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples (gross measures)
Gross Measures
Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples Versus ...
Gay Male Couples (%) Lesbian Couples (%)
Consistency index 15.9 15.6
Initial response provided 11.6 11.2
Table E-2. Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples (net measures)
Net Measures
Tests Favoring Heterosexual Couples Versus ...
Gay Male Couples (%) Lesbian Couples (%)
Consistency index 2.2* 1.3
Initial response provided 3.1** 2.3**
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
viii
Figure E-1. National-Level Adverse Treatment Against Gay Male and Lesbian Couples, 2011
15.9%
13.7%
2.2*
15.6%
14.3%
1.3%
11.6%
8.5%
3.1**
11.2%
8.9%
2.3**
Heterosexual favored Gay male favored
Gay male-heterosexual tests
Net measure Heterosexual favored Lesbian favored
Lesbian-heterosexual tests
Net measure
Consistency index Reponse provided
* Significant at the p ≤ .05 level. **Significant at the p ≤ .01 level.
Effect of Legislative Protections
In states with legislative protections against housing discrimina-
tion based on sexual orientation, heterosexual couples were
consistently favored over gay male couples in 16.0 percent of
tests and were favored over lesbian couples in 15.9 percent of
tests. In states without such protections, however, heterosexual
couples were favored over gay male and lesbian couples at rates
that were 0.6 percentage points less than those in protected
states (that is, 15.4 and 15.3 percent, respectively). Moreover,
the net measure for gay male couples relative to heterosexual
couples (3.1 percent) was statistically significant only in juris-
dictions with state-level protections. Taken together, those
results are surprising in that states with legislative protections
prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of sexual ori-
entation do not show lower levels of adverse treatment. Several
factors could account for this unexpected finding, including
potentially low levels of enforcement, housing provider un-
familiarity with state-level protections, or the possibility that
protections exist in states with the greatest need for them.
Effect of Metropolitan Market Size
When disaggregated by the size of metropolitan areas, the results
of the paired tests continue to reveal that heterosexual couples
were consistently favored over gay male and lesbian couples,
although variation exists in the magnitude of the differences in
treatment. These differences exhibit no clearcut pattern by met-
ropolitan market size, however. The net measure is statistically
significant only in gauging the treatment of gay male couples
relative to heterosexual couples in the largest metropolitan areas.
Conclusions and Implications
The findings presented in this report provide evi dence that
discrimination exists against same-sex couples in the initial
stages of the search for electronically advertised rental housing
in metropolitan America. The study measured the response of
housing providers regarding the sexual orientation of couples
and did not examine other characteristics, such as gender iden-
tity. The adverse treatment of same-sex couples stems largely
from the fact that housing providers are less likely to respond
to same-sex couples than to heterosexual couples.
This study employed paired e-mail correspondence tests rather
than in-person, paired tests, and it allowed for only one e-mail
interaction with each housing provider. Because the observations
are at the very threshold of the rental transaction, the estimates
of discrimination presented here likely underestimate the extent
to which heterosexual couples are favored over same-sex couples
in the rental housing market. Nevertheless, the incidence of
consistently favored treatment of heterosexual couples relative
to gay male and lesbian couples (that is, 15.9 and 15.6 per-
cent, respectively) is similar in magnitude to the incidence of

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
ix
consistently favored treatment of White homeseekers relative
to Black and Hispanic homeseekers (that is, 21.6 and 25.7 per-
cent, respectively) found using in-person audits in HDS2000.
This study serves as the initial step toward future research on
same-sex housing discrimination. Although its use of paired
testing and its national scope are strengths, the study design
is limited to e-mail tests of rental housing in metropolitan
markets advertised by one source on the Internet. Moreover,
the study captures the treatment of test e-mail inquiries by
housing providers in response to only one e-mail sent by each
tester, and it therefore does not consider what could happen
to testers through additional contact (via additional followup
e-mails, phone, or in-person communication). Thus, the testing
conducted in this study is representative of the initial stage of
the housing search by prospective renters in the metropolitan
rental housing market.
The contribution of this study is to demonstrate that same-sex
couples are less likely than heterosexual couples to gain access
to the targeted rental unit. When same-sex couples do receive
a response, however, the treatment by housing providers is, for
the most part, equal—at least for a single e-mail interaction.
This type of discrimination diverges somewhat from that which
has been found between Whites and non-White minorities
(Friedman, Squires, and Galvan, 2010). In large part, the dis-
parity between Whites and non-White minorities in the initial
access to housing units (that is, getting a response from provid-
ers) is less than the disparity observed in additional contact
with providers (for example, getting more than one response or
the potential to inspect the unit).
This first set of national findings on the discrimination against
same-sex couples in the metropolitan rental housing market
should serve as a point of departure for future research on
same-sex housing discrimination. In-person testing would
provide valuable, additional information on the experiences of
same-sex couples in the rental market, and it would replicate
the approach of other HDS research and track the real-life
sequence of a rental housing search. A broader sample of ad-
vertised rental units, including other electronic media and print
advertisements, could be used for in-person testing.
Future studies could employ e-mail or in-person audits to
further examine differences in treatment between same-sex and
heterosexual couples in states with and without legislative pro-
tections for sexual orientation or gender identity. Local jurisdic-
tions’ protections were not within the scope of this study, and
examining the effect of such local protections on differential
treatment could be very useful. In addition, this study looked
at treatment based only on the sexual orientation of same-sex
couples and not on gender identity or gender expression. This
study does not explicitly capture treatment of transgender
people or people who do not conform to stereotypical gender
norms because it used the e-mail testing approach. Finally,
future research could seek to obtain metropolitan-specific
estimates of discrimination against same-sex couples. Perhaps
this approach could shed light on the mixed findings of rental
housing discrimination revealed across metropolitan areas in
this study.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
1
Introduction
This report presents the findings of the first large-scale, paired-
testing study to measure treatment of same-sex couples in the
electronically advertised rental housing market. The study,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and conducted by M. Davis and Company
(MDAC), Inc., was developed to obtain a baseline national
estimate of housing discrimination against same-sex couples at
the initial stage of the search for rental housing. It builds on the
well-established matched-pair testing method used in previous
HUD housing discrimination studies (HDSs) examining racial
and ethnic discrimination in the housing market. The in-person
method was adapted to reflect the increased use of the Internet
in the housing search. The results are based on 6,833 paired
e-mail tests conducted in 50 metropolitan areas from June
through October 2011.
This study examines the treatment of same-sex couples seeking
rental housing, a subject not previously observed on a national
scale. Although the federal Fair Housing Act does not include
sexual orientation or gender identity among its protected classes,
evidence suggests that discrimination on the basis of actual or
perceived sexual orientation limits housing opportunities for gay
men and lesbians. Studies of public perception and attitudes
toward sexual minorities show prejudice and stigma against this
community (Herek, 2009a, 2009b). Smaller scale testing projects
and other studies, discussed in the following section, indicate
that same-sex couples experience prejudice based on their
sexual orientation and encounter discrimination in their search
for housing. State and local jurisdictions are increasingly enact-
ing legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity. Based on the existing evidence
of discrimination experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people, HUD recently issued a final rule to
ensure that its core programs are open to all eligible individuals
and families, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
1

In addition, recognizing the increasing use of the Internet to
search for housing, this study uses Internet advertising and
matched-pair e-mails—the threshold of the housing transac-
tion—as the point of contact between the tester and the hous-
ing provider. In each paired test, the housing provider received
two e-mails inquiring into an advertised rental unit: one from
a self-identified same-sex couple and one from a self-identified
heterosexual couple.
Fair Housing Laws
The federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1968) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financ-
ing of housing or in other housing-related transactions on the
basis of seven protected classes: race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, familial status (the presence of children less than 18
years old, seeking custody of such people, or being pregnant),
and disability. For example, housing providers are prohibited
from considering these protected characteristics as the basis
for rejecting or refusing to negotiate with individuals seeking
housing or housing-related services, from misrepresenting or
limiting housing opportunities based on these protected char-
acteristics, or in setting different terms or conditions because of
these protected characteristics.
Neither sexual orientation nor gender identity is a protected
class under the federal Fair Housing Act, although some forms
of such discrimination against LGBT people might be prohibited
under currently protected classes: sex discrimination (for example,
nonconformity with gender stereotypes), sexual harassment, or
disability (such as a provider’s perception that a gay applicant
might have HIV/AIDS). An increasing number of states and
local jurisdictions have enacted legislative protections against
housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. As of early 2012, 20 states and the District of Colum-
bia have enacted legislation prohibiting housing discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity:
2
California Nevada
Colorado New Hampshire
Connecticut (sexual orientation only)
Delaware New Jersey
(sexual orientation only) New Mexico
Hawaii New York
Illinois (sexual orientation only)
Iowa Oregon
Maine Rhode Island
Maryland Vermont
(sexual orientation only) Washington
Massachusetts Washington, D.C.
Minnesota Wisconsin
(sexual orientation only)
1
“Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” Final rule. Federal Register 77 (5662) February 3, 2012. Also
available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=12lgbtfinalrule.pdf.
2
See HUD’s Fair Housing Act LGBT web page at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/LGBT_Housing_Discrimination.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
2
Several states and more than 240 local jurisdictions currently
prohibit discrimination in employment and public accom-
modations on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of these
local jurisdictions also prohibit discrimination in housing
on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender
expression.
On February 3, 2012, HUD published its Final Rule, “Equal
Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual
Orie ntation or Gender Identity,” which prohibits making a
determination of eligibility for HUD-assisted or HUD-insured
housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The rule applies to all HUD programs, including public housing,
HUD-assisted or HUD-financed housing, and FHA-insured
mortgage financing. The rule has four main provisions: It
(1) requires providers assisted by HUD or insured by FHA to
make housing available without regard to actual or perceived
sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status; (2) clarifies
that the definitions of family and household, which are integral to
determining who is eligible for HUD’s core programs, includes
people regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation,
gender identity, or marital status; (3) prohibits HUD-assisted
and FHA-insured entities from inquiring about an applicant’s
or occupant’s sexual orientation or gender identity for the
purpose of determining eligibility or otherwise making housing
available; and (4) prohibits FHA-approved lenders from basing
eligibility determinations for FHA-insured loans on actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
3

Although less than one-half of all states provide state-level
protection against housing discrimination for LGBT people, the
effect of this lack of legislation remains unknown. Although
most information is anecdotal, some previous formal research
studies, described in the following section, illuminate the issue
of housing discrimination against LGBT people.
Paired Testing and Previous Housing
Discrimination Studies
Testing is an investigative technique used to observe the practices
of housing providers. Testers, who pose as individuals seeking
housing, contact housing providers in a variety of ways to in-
quire about housing opportunities. The origins of paired testing
as a method of studying housing discrimination and identifying
differential treatment lie in fair housing enforcement, and test-
ing was originally used to identify individual housing providers
who were violating housing discrimination laws. HUD has used
testing for more than 40 years to investigate discriminatory
housing practices, because testing is a powerful tool for directly
observing differences in the treatment that homeseekers experi-
ence. When paired testing is applied to large, representative
samples and implemented with rigorous controls, it provides
reliable estimates of the differences in treatment among differ-
ent populations.
HUD funded three national studies using the methodology of
matched-pair testing to measure the levels of housing discrimi-
nation based primarily on race and ethnicity.
In 1977, HUD’s Housing Market Practices Survey (HMPS1977)
employed the auditor technique to observe differential treatment
of Black and White homeseekers. The Black and White audi-
tors were both male or both female and had approximately
the same level of education, income, occupation, and family
characteristics. Each member of the audit team responded
separately to advertisements that were randomly selected from
major newspapers, and then they recorded their treatment on
standardized forms. In HMPS1977 1,609 rental and 1,655 sales
audits were conducted in 40 metropolitan areas during May
and June of 1977. The results revealed significant differences
between the Black and White audits. The white auditor was
favored 50.4 percent of the time in the sales market and 45.7
percent of the time in the rental market. The black auditor was
favored only 19.7 and 17.9 percent of the time, respectively.
HUD built on the HMPS1977 experience 10 years later by
launching a second national audit study, the 1989 Housing
Discrimination Study (HDS1989). This study involved 3,800
paired tests for discrimination against Black and Hispanic
homeseekers. As in HMPS1977, both rental and sales markets
were tested in a random sample of 25 major metropolitan
areas. Black-White tests were conducted in 20 of these sites and
Hispanic-non-Hispanic White tests were conducted in 13 sites.
The HDS methodology also involved expanded sample sizes
in 5 metropolitan areas, which supported in depth analysis of
variations in patterns of discrimination within urban areas (Fix
and Turner, 1998).
In HDS1989, Black renters faced a 10.7-percent chance of being
excluded altogether from housing made available to comparable
White renters and a 23.5-percent chance of learning about fewer
apartments. Real estate brokers were also much more likely to
offer financial advice to White than to Black customers.
In HUD’s third national study, Discrimination in Metropolitan
Housing Markets (HDS2000), the results were based on 4,600
paired tests conducted in 23 metropolitan areas nationwide
during the summer and fall of 2000.
3
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=12lgbtfinalrule.pdf.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
3
HDS2000 Phase I was designed to provide updated national
estimates of adverse treatment against Black and Hispanic home -
seekers and to measure change in the incidence of differential
treatment since 1989. In addition, Phase I provided estimates
of adverse treatment against Black and Hispanic homeseekers
in 20 individual metropolitan areas and exploratory estimates
of adverse treatment against Asian (in 2 metropolitan areas)
and Native American (in 1 metropolitan area) homeseekers.
The basic testing protocols replicated those implemented in
HDS1989. Random samples of advertised housing units were
drawn weekly from major metropolitan newspapers, and testers
visited the sampled offices to inquire about the availability of
these advertised units. Both minority and White partners were
assigned incomes, assets, and debt levels to make them equally
qualified to buy or rent the advertised housing unit. Test part-
ners were also assigned comparable family circumstances, job
characteristics, education levels, and housing preferences. They
visited sales or rental agents and systematically recorded the
information and assistance they received about the advertised
unit or similar units, including location, quality, condition, rent
or sales price, and other terms and conditions. Test partners
did not compare their experiences with one another or record
any conclusions about differences in treatment; each simply
reported the details of the treatment he or she experienced as
an individual homeseeker.
As reported in the Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Mar-
kets: National Results from Phase I HDS 2000 Final Report (HUD,
2002), researchers found that discrimination persisted in both
rental and sales markets of large metropolitan areas nationwide
but that its incidence had generally declined since 1989. Afri-
can Americans still faced discrimination when they searched
for rental housing in metropolitan markets nationwide. White
renters were consistently favored over Black renters in 21.6
percent of the tests (the net measure, at 2.3 percent, was much
lower). In particular, White renters were more likely to receive
information about available housing units and had more op-
portunities to inspect available units. Discrimination against
Black renters declined between 1989 and 2000 but was not
eliminated. The overall incidence of consistent White-favored
treatment dropped by 4.8 percentage points, from 26.4 percent
in 1989 to 21.6 percent in 2000.
Hispanic renters nationwide also faced significant levels of
discrimination. Non-Hispanic White renters were consistently
favored in 25.7 percent of tests (the net measure was 6.1 per -
cent). Specifically, non-Hispanic White renters were more likely
to receive information about available housing and opportunities
to inspect available units than were Hispanic renters. Discrimi-
nation against Hispanic renters appeared to have remained
essentially unchanged since 1989, and Hispanic renters ap-
peared to face a greater incidence of discrimination than Black
renters.
Previous Research on Discrimination
Against LGBT People
None of the previous HUD housing discrimination studies in-
cluded observation of the differential treatment of homeseekers
on the basis of sexual orientation, and little empirical research
has focused on housing discrimination against the LGBT com-
munity.
In community-based surveys conducted during the 1980s
and 1990s with nonprobability samples, many lesbians and
gay men reported that they had experienced some form of
housing discrimination. For example, in a statewide survey of
Pennsylvania lesbians and gay men conducted by the Philadel-
phia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, housing discrimination was
reported by between 9 and 16 percent of males (depending
on race) and between 5 and 11 percent of females (Gross and
Aurand, 1996).
In a 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 11 percent of the
lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents said they had personally
experienced discrimination in renting an apartment or buying
a home. Another 35 percent said they had not personally
experienced such discrimination but knew someone else who
had (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001).
In a 2005 national survey of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual
adults (Herek, 2009a), approximately 4 percent of respondents
reported they had experienced some form of housing discrimi-
nation because of their sexual orientation. Such discrimination
was more common among gay men (reported by 6.5 percent)
and lesbians (5.1 percent) than among bisexual men (nearly
2 percent) and bisexual women (1.3 percent).
When interpreting these figures, it is important to remember
that many lesbian, gay male, and bisexual people refrain from
revealing their sexual orientation in a variety of social situations
as a way of avoiding stigma (Herek, 2009b). For this reason,
evaluating the prevalence of housing discrimination would be
facilitated by knowledge of the extent to which sexual minority
adults have concealed their sexual orientation from potential
landlords and real estate agents.
A survey of more than 6,000 transgender people by the
National Center for Transgender Equality and the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (NCTE and NGLTFF,
2011) indicated significant levels of housing instability for

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
4
transgender people. Of the respondents, 26 percent reported
having to find alternative places to sleep for short periods of
time, 11 percent reported having been evicted, and 19 percent
reported becoming homeless because of bias.
Although stigma and prejudice based on sexual orientation
are widespread, and employment discrimination against LGBT
individuals has been well documented, little empirical research
has examined housing discrimination against the LGBT com-
munity in the United States. The only published studies on
housing discrimination against gay men and lesbians were
conducted in Sweden (Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt,
2008; Ahmed and Hammarstedt, 2009) and Canada (Lauster
and Easterbrook, 2011). Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2009)
e-mailed landlords who had advertised an available apartment
on an Internet service comparable to the service used for this
study. The e-mails were ostensibly sent by either a gay male
couple or by an otherwise comparable heterosexual couple.
The study found that the heterosexual couple was significantly
more likely than the gay male couple to receive a response
to the e-mail, to be asked to provide further information,
and to be invited to an immediate showing of the apartment.
Regarding a gross measure of adverse treatment, Ahmed and
Hammarstedt (2009) found that heterosexual couples were
favored over gay male couples in getting an e-mail response
in 12.3 percent of the correspondence tests (not matched
pairs); the net measure was 11.4 percentage points and was
the only dimension of adverse treatment that was statistically
significant. No disparities emerged in invitations to contact
the provider or to a showing of the unit. Ahmed, Andersson,
and Hammarstedt (2008) did not find comparable differences
between the responses to a lesbian couple and a heterosexual
couple. Lauster and Easterbrook (2011) also found no disparity
between lesbian and heterosexual couples but found that gay
male couples were less likely than heterosexual couples to
receive positive responses from housing providers.
The Fair Housing Centers of Michigan, which comprises four
local fair housing organizations, conducted a testing audit of
housing discrimination based on sexual orientation (FHC of
Michigan, 2007) that found disparate treatment in 32 out of
120 (27 percent) fair housing tests it conducted. Testers posing
as gay male or lesbian homeseekers received unfavorable treat-
ment regarding whether housing was available, the amount of
rent, application fees, and levels of encouragement compared
with the treatment of testers posing as heterosexual homeseekers.
The gay male and lesbian testers also were subjected to offensive
comments.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
5
Research Design
The objective of this study is to develop the first national
estimate of the level of housing discrimination against same-
sex couples—that is, men partnering with men and women
partnering with women—in the electronically advertised rental
market.
Hypotheses
Given the findings of previous research (for example, Ahmed,
Andersson, and Hammarstedt, 2008; Ahmed and Ham-
marstedt, 2009; Lauster and Easterbrook, 2011), we expect
that a disparity will exist in the responses of housing providers
to inquiries from heterosexual and from same-sex couples
expressing interest in electronically advertised rental housing.
The findings of Ahmed and his colleagues and of Lauster and
Easterbrook suggest that disparities will be more prevalent be-
tween gay male and heterosexual couples than between lesbian
and heterosexual couples. We expect that same-sex couples,
and in particular gay male couples, will be less likely than
heterosexual couples to receive responses from housing provid-
ers, invitations to contact providers, and invitations to inspect
the advertised rental unit. We expect that states with legislative
protections will have lower levels of discrimination against
same-sex couples than those without protections because of the
enforcement mechanism in place.
E-mail Approach
The way people search for housing has changed dramatically in
the 21st century, with much of the housing search now taking
place via the Internet. It is estimated that between 43 and 90
percent of renters consult the Internet to search for housing
(Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., 2005; Horrigan, 2008;
Wagner, 2008). Housing in this segment of the market has not
been scrutinized as carefully as housing advertised through
newspapers or other printed media, however. Although fair
housing advocates have brought attention to the discriminatory
nature of the content of advertisements on electronic media,
little research has brought a systematic focus to how housing
providers actually treat prospective tenants at the initial stages
of a housing search through e-mail inquiries.
A small but growing literature has begun to examine the treat-
ment of protected groups in the online housing market via cor-
respondence testing (for example, Ewens, Tomlin, and Wang,
forthcoming; Friedman, Squires, and Galvan, 2010; Hogan and
Berry, 2011). E-mails that are matched on all characteristics
except those indicating the nature of the protected group (for
example, race or ethnicity) are sent to housing providers in-
quiring about the availability of the unit. The only characteristic
of the e-mail that varies is the text used to convey the nature of
the protected class (for example, names traditionally associated
with a particular racial or ethnic group).
The results of an online survey conducted by Community
Marketing, Inc. (CMI) and MDAC in March 2010 demonstrated
that, among a sample of 297 LGBT renters who had conducted
a search for new housing in the previous 12 months, 63 percent
used the Internet as a primary source in their search, whereas
18 percent used newspaper ads and articles (CMI and MDAC,
2010). The CMI/MDAC pulse study further indicated that 77
percent of the respondents who inquired about rental housing
through the Internet used the listing site selected for this study.
The other two most frequently cited websites had only about
one-third as much usage, 27 and 25 percent.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
6
Methodology
This study uses an e-mail, or correspondence, test methodology
to gauge the level of discrimination against same-sex couples in
the rental housing market, which has not previously been ex-
amined on a national scale in the United States. The researchers
completed 6,833 tests via e-mail, divided between gay male
couples (3,424 tests) and lesbian couples (3,409 tests).
In this study, the matched pairs were the e-mails sent to hous -
ing providers. Each correspondence test involved sending
two e-mails to the housing provider, both inquiring about the
availability of the advertised unit. Each inquiry was from a
person in a committed relationship asking about an advertised
one-bedroom apartment. E-mails from heterosexuals referred to
a relationship partner as “husband” or “wife”; e-mails from gay
men and lesbians referred to a relationship partner as “partner.”
Focus groups of gay men and lesbians indicated that the term
“partner” was most frequently used to indicate a relationship.
Moreover, in many states, same-sex marriage is not legally
recognized; thus, the terms “husband” or “wife” for same-sex
partners might be used unevenly across the country.
The text of the matched-pair e-mails contained similar language
asking about the housing unit for rent. The only difference
between the two e-mails was the sexual orientation of the tester
making the inquiry. In the case of gay male couples, male
names were used by the individual signing the e-mail and for
the partner of that individual. In the case of lesbian couples,
female names were used.
The Internet listing site used in this project was chosen as the
universe from which to sample the electronic advertisements
because the first contact between the prospective renter and
the housing provider can always occur via e-mail. Several
other electronic search engines require prospective renters to
complete an online registration form asking for their phone
numbers and current addresses, which would permit housing
providers to contact prospective renters by phone rather than
limit the contact to e-mail responses. The chosen site is also
ideal because the format of the advertisements and the nature
of the contact between providers and prospective tenants are
uniform throughout the country.
Selecting Markets
The primary objective of the sampling plan was to obtain data
that would (1) produce nationally representative metropolitan-
market estimates of various measures of housing discrimination
against same-sex couples; (2) to the extent possible, produce
estimates of these measures by whether a state had legislative
protections prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation; and (3) to the extent possible, produce esti-
mates of these measures for individual markets, by market size.
Random Sample of Markets
The sampling frame used a proportional-to-population-size
(PPS) approach to randomly select 50 markets from among
the 331 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or primary met-
ropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs), based on the 2000 census
definitions. The selection of these areas permitted inclusion of
larger and smaller markets for the sample, facilitating a more
nationally representative sample.
Using information available in the 2005–2009 American Com-
munity Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, we estimated the total
population for each market by applying the county allocation
to MSAs and PMSAs available in MABLE/Geocorr. The markets
selected for inclusion in the sampling frame are those with a
population of at least 100,000, which is sufficient to (1) ensure
adequate coverage on the Internet listing service so that enough
unique housing providers could be sampled and (2) support a
systematic testing effort on same-sex couples. Selecting markets
with populations of 100,000 or more substantially increases
the likelihood of choosing an area with a sufficient number and
percentage of same-sex couples to support the proposed num-
ber of tests.
4
Of the 331 MSAs,
5
94 percent (312) had sufficient
total populations to be eligible for inclusion in the sampling
population.
6
The sampling process then selected markets with
PPS sampling.
4
The estimated number of same-sex households is highly correlated with estimated total population size (r = 0.97). The likelihood within each stratum of selecting
a market with at least 250 same-sex households (based on 2005–2009 ACS 5-year estimates) is as follows: less than 100,000, 21 percent; 100,000 to 250,000, 69
percent; 250,000 or more, 100 percent.
5
The analysis uses 2000 census definitions for MSAs and PMSAs. We estimate population and same-sex households using the 2007–2009 ACS 3-year estimates for
county-level data aggregated to the MSA level.
6
The analysis eliminates six MSAs and PMSAs in Puerto Rico from the sampling frame.


An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
7
Sampling Strategy
Allocation of Tests Across Markets
In the first stage of the sampling procedure, we classified se-
lected markets by stratum, which distinguishes markets by the
size of the total population. We defined various strata based on
population size: insufficient population to support a systematic
testing effort (less than 100,000), small (100,000 to 249,999),
medium (250,000 to 399,999), medium-to-large (400,000 to
749,999), large (750,000 to 1,499,999), very large (1,500,000
to 4,999,999), and largest (5,000,000 or more). The PPS
sample yields a higher representation of larger markets, thus
reducing concerns about sampling adequate numbers of unique
housing providers and permitting within-market exploration
of housing market discrimination against gay male and lesbian
couples. Achieving the targeted number of tests in the small
stratum was not possible in the relatively short study period
(14 weeks) without duplicating providers and running the risk
of detection. Given this difficulty, we collapsed the small and
medium strata to create a small-to-medium stratum and renamed
the medium-to-large stratum medium. The result was five strata
for market size analysis.
In the second stage of the procedure, we sampled advertised
rental units from online listings. After randomly selecting a
market using the PPS approach, we identified whether the
market was covered by the selected listing service. For a market
to be included in the sample, it had to have complete coverage
throughout the metropolitan area being sampled. For example,
for the Washington, D.C. market to be included in our sample,
the range of advertised units had to be in areas throughout
the metropolitan area (for example, Fairfax County, Virginia;
Prince George’s County, Maryland; the District of Columbia;
and so on) and not in only one of those jurisdictions. If the
listing service did not cover all of a selected market, it was
not included in the sampling frame, and another market was
randomly selected using PPS sampling. This process ensured a
final sample of 50 markets with complete coverage.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the sampled listings repre-
senting unique housing providers (landlords) across population
size strata. The distribution of listings sampled generally con -
formed proportionally to population across strata. The goals
for the size and composition of the sample were 9,100 tests
across the 50 sampled markets, with the number of tests within
a market divided between gay male couple-heterosexual couple
matched-pair tests and lesbian couple-heterosexual couple
matched-pair tests. Appendix A provides a table illustrating
the distribution of the originally proposed 9,100 tests. Table 1
reflects the distribution of the actual sample of 6,833 tests.
We originally chose a target of 9,100 tests to ensure a reason-
able margin of error—within 1 percentage point, at 95 percent
confidence—for the national gross measure of discrimination
against same-sex couples. Because we could not sample dupli-
cate providers and the timeframe for conducting the testing was
relatively short (14 weeks), we achieved 6,833 tests across the
50 sampled markets. We estimate the overall consistency meas-
ure for gay male-heterosexual tests and lesbian-heterosexual
tests within 1.7 percentage points. Therefore, despite the differ-
ence between the originally proposed number of tests and the
number of achieved tests, our estimates of differential treatment
remain within a reasonable range.
One of the strategies of the data collection was to sample
housing providers only once within each metropolitan area to
minimize the chances that the provider would detect the testing
in the study. The listing service used for this study contains
multiple advertisements from the same housing providers.
Some are easy to identify and others are not. For example, in
housing markets where real estate agencies list available rental
units, such agencies can post multiple ads by multiple agents
within the same company. If those agents see similar e-mail
messages for different available rental units, they might detect
the testing, which could bias the results of the study.
To minimize the chances of detection, an automated scraping
tool was used to scrape, or select, the ads from each of the 50
Table 1. Number of Paired Tests in Each Stratum
a
Based on the population residing in micropolitan or metropolitan markets with populations of at least 100,000. Less than 1 percent of all people reside in markets with
populations of 100,000 or less.
Population Size Stratum
Percent of
Population
a

(%)
Matched-Pair Tests
Gay Male
(N)
Lesbian
(N)
Total
(N)
Percent of
Total Tests
(%)
100,000 to 400,000 (small-to-medium) 15 124 122 246 4
400,000 to 750,000 (medium) 14 250 253 503 7
750,000 to 1,500,000 (large) 14 387 373 760 11
1,500,000 to 5,000,000 (very large) 39 1,763 1,761 3,524 52
5,000,000 or more (largest) 18 900 900 1,800 26
Total 100 3,424 3,409 6,833 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
8
markets. The scraping tool is an existing computer software
program, modified to meet the needs of this study. On a given
day, the tool created a partially complete entry for each ad
by extracting some data from its page. The tool then filtered
the information so that the sampling frame included only
one-bedroom apartments for rent. The tool also used filters to
exclude ads that did not provide the address, cross street, rent,
or reply-to e-mail for the unit. These scrape files were loaded
daily into a Microsoft Access database. Within a market, the
Access database would then screen out any new advertisement
for which the housing provider was already in the database
(that is, contained a duplicate phone number, address, agent or
owner name, e-mail address, and so on). Files that remained in
the database were considered to be unique housing providers.
These files were provided at random to test administrators,
who then reviewed the partial data entry (correcting if neces-
sary) and completed it with the information that the scraper
was not designed to extract (for example, the kind of unit,
presence of discriminatory statements, and so on). The test
administrator would then submit the posting to the e-mail
scheduling program. The Access database would run a second
check for duplicate information on the newly completed post-
ing entry and, if the entry was not from a duplicate landlord,
the e-mail address associated with the posting entry would
have a paired e-mail test scheduled. This selection process was
continued until the targeted number of listings within each
market for each stratum was reached. Listings within each
stratum were divided equally between gay male-heterosexual
tests and lesbian-heterosexual tests.
Post Sampling: Identify LGBT Protections
For each listing in the final sample, we determined whether the
location for the listing is subject to state-level legislative protec-
tions against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. We classified listings for which the location of the
housing unit is covered by such protections as “Legislatively
Protected,” while we classified other listings as “Not Legisla-
tively Protected.” Only state-level protections were determined;
local jurisdiction protections were not identified.
Although the purpose of the study was to obtain statistically
valid national estimates, sample sizes within subgroupings
permitted statistically valid gross or net measures of housing
discrimination against gay men and lesbians for three primary
factors: (1) legislative protections (covered by protection for
sexual orientation or not), (2) MSA population size stratum,
and (3) individual markets for metropolitan areas with popula-
tions exceeding 5 million.
Selection of Housing Providers
After the 50 study areas were selected, the selection of housing
providers or landlords commenced. This sampling was com-
pleted in two stages.
The first stage used an automated scraping tool or gather ads
within each of the 50 study areas for one-bedroom apartments
for rent. The tool took all the ads from a given regional web-
site, screened them based on criteria provided, and stored the
information from the ads in a searchable database. The software
was programmed to navigate through the metropolitan areas
listed in the sampling frame and save each newly added rental
posting (advertising one-bedroom units) to a local server. This
group of listings was then scraped to extract textual informa-
tion contained within each posting. This scraping process
involved two different kinds of extraction:
1. Structured extraction entails identifying textual information
that is entered into categorized forms at the time of the
posting’s creation or generated by the website. Structured
items are associated with tags the listing service creates upon
generation and are therefore readily identified with simple
programming techniques. Structured information includes
items such as the address or cross streets of a listing, “Post-
ing ID,” and the date and time of the original posting.
2. Unstructured extraction entails identifying information that
is not associated with predetermined tags but is likely to be
in a posting. Phone numbers and e-mail addresses are often
present in the body of the text generated by the poster. The
program is cued to this information by the presence of “-”
(dashes), “@” (at signs), and other patterns. These cues are
not 100 percent accurate but, when used in conjunction
with other known language patterns (that is, the number of
digits associated with a telephone number), can yield high
accuracy in the extraction of data from free-form text.
In the second stage, newly saved postings and the correspond-
ing data that were scraped from these postings were provided
daily. The data provided were from a query that was filtered
to retain only one-bedroom units that had address or cross-
street information. These queried datasets were loaded to the
Audit-Level Database in Microsoft Access. These data did not
constitute complete audit-level entries, but they were screened
by the scraper tool for a minimum level of data to constitute a
useable listing. Test administrators reviewed the scraped data
against the original listing and completed the coding of the list-
ing. These data were screened twice by the Access database for
duplicate landlords (once before the test administrator’s review
and coding and once after).

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
9
For each study area, a new scrape file was loaded to the Access
database from the Internet listing service each day (for 6 days
of a given week). The sampling of landlords took place during a
14-week period to allow for a comprehensive representation of
landlords and available one-bedroom rental units within each
metropolitan area. Manual processing of Internet listings in
Access took place 6 days a week, although scraping took place
7 days a week (two scrape files were loaded each Monday).
Conducting the E-mail Testing
Overview
After the markets to be sampled were selected and advertise-
ments were scraped, postings from each of those markets were
loaded to the database and matched-pair e-mail testing com-
menced. During the 14-week data collection period, from June
through October 2011, postings processed in the audit-level
database were randomly assigned to matched pairs of e-mails
from gay male and heterosexual couples or from lesbian and
heterosexual couples. The procedures in the following list were
used in executing the tests and in collecting the resulting data
to minimize the risk of detection by housing providers involved
in the correspondence tests.
Procedures for Executing the E-mail Tests
1. Names. First names and e-mail accounts were created for
the e-mails from prospective gay male, lesbian, and hetero-
sexual renters. In addition, names were created for partners
of the gay male and lesbian renters and for spouses of the
heterosexual renters. Eight lists of names were created:
a. Heterosexual renters inquiring about the unit who are
female.
b. Heterosexual renters inquiring about the unit who are male.
c. Heterosexual renters’ husbands.
d. Heterosexual renters’ wives.
e. Lesbian renters inquiring about the unit.
f. Lesbian renters’ partners.
g. Gay male renters inquiring about the unit.
h. Gay male renters’ partners.
The names appearing on these lists came from the Social Secu-
rity Administration’s website of popular baby girls’ and boys’
names.
7
The top 20 girls’ names and the top 20 boys’ names in
the United States from 1970 through 1985 (between ages 25
and 40 at the time of the study; that is, individuals who were
likely to be in the market for rental housing) were retrieved from
this site. These boys’ and girls’ names were then consolidated
into two master lists. The names on each of these master lists
were then filtered to eliminate duplicates, gender-neutral names
(for example, “Shannon”), and to include race-neutral names.
After the master lists of male and female first names were cre-
ated, within each study area the two sets of 20 names (40 total
names) were randomly divided into the eight conditions of a
2 (Gender) X 2 (Sexual Orientation) X 2 (e-mail sender/sender’s
partner) counterbalance. The result was eight lists of 5 names
each, falling into the listed conditions, a through h, described
in the preceding list. Appendix C provides the full list of male
and female names.
2. E-mail Accounts. After the lists of names were completed,
the e-mail addresses were developed. Each of the 20 names
was randomly assigned to a Yahoo!, Hotmail, or Gmail e-mail
address in each of the 50 study areas to create 1,000 unique
e-mail addresses. Thus, in each study area, each name that was
used to sign the e-mails from prospective renters had a unique
e-mail account. We assigned an account that closely resembled
the first name selected but made some modifications (for ex-
ample, inserting numbers after the name) because of existing
accounts. So, for example, the name “Jennifer” for heterosexual
female renters could appear on the list for both the New York
and Chicago metropolitan areas. Each of these Jennifers would
be randomly assigned to a different e-mail account. For ex-
ample, Jennifer in New York would have the e-mail account,
jennifer312@gmail.com, but Jennifer in Chicago would be
assigned jennifer65@yahoo.com. This one-time randomization
of names to e-mail domains was critical to facilitating the track -
ing of e-mails that were sent to and received from housing
providers.
3. Randomization. After the names were assigned to the e-mail
domains on the four lists, tables were developed in the Access
database to randomize each of the following necessary elements
of all the tests to be conducted:
a. The names given to the testers in each test.
b. The names given to the partner referred to in each e-mail
text. (Note: this one-time randomization meant that the
names of the renter and partner/spouse were always
paired together. This procedure made the inquiries more
realistic and lessened the chances of detection.)
c. The e-mail subject line and text (including the greeting
and closing). Appendix D reproduces the e-mail subject
lines and text.
d. Which e-mail was sent first to the provider.
7
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/state/index.html.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
10
The e-mail text was developed to vary such that the wording
realistically conveyed to the housing provider that the person
inquiring about the unit came from a heterosexual, gay male,
or lesbian couple. The remaining text in the e-mail inquiries
and in the subject lines, however, was designed not to differ in
any other significant ways. This methodology was employed as
another way to reduce the potential for detection if a housing
provider was accidentally sampled more than once. Random-
izing the order in which the heterosexual and the same-sex
couple e-mails were sent decreased the likelihood that the
treatment of these couples was because of the order in which
the e-mails were received.
4. Preparing the e-mails to be sent. Using a “mail merge”
feature, all the randomized elements were combined into the
messages sent to the housing providers. The text of the e-mails
was constructed based on the components created in steps 2
and 3.
5. Sending the e-mails. Test administrator staff sent the e-mail
inquiries to the landlord of the identified housing unit. The
inquiries were made 1 day after the posting of the advertise-
ment. In addition, the staff left about a 2-hour gap between the
times when the e-mails were sent to the provider from each
of the two parties in the matched-pair test. This procedure re-
duced the likelihood that landlords or housing providers would
suspect that they were being tested. Initially, the software utility
package called “Letter Me Later” was used by staff to automate
the process, but it was later discontinued, and an add-on for
Access with the same function was used instead. This software
enabled the staff to schedule the e-mails to be sent at particular
times and ensured that the order in which landlords received
inquiries was properly varied, with each e-mail having a 50-50
chance of being sent first.
Procedures for Coding the Data
The data coded for the project came from four sources: (1) the
scraping tool, (2) items about the advertised unit or landlord
that could not be gleaned from the scraping tool, (3) the
process by which the correspondence test was conducted (the
time of day the e-mail was sent, which couple sent their e-mail
first, and so on), and (4) the response or nonresponse from the
landlord. Also, the data gathered from sources 1 and 2 on the
address of the unit were geocoded to the census tract level so
that census data could be merged with the data collected in this
study. Appendix E contains the complete data dictionary, and
the following list presents each set of items in more detail.
1. The test administrator responsible for conducting the
correspondence tests was also charged with coding the data
for each test. The first set of data, on the housing unit and
the landlord, came directly from the scraping tool. These
data were included in an Access database for the geographic
area in which the correspondence tests were conducted.
Such data included the metropolitan area (area searched
to find ad), subject line of the ad, posting ID, listing date,
listing time, listing category (fee, no fee, by owner, “n/a”),
monthly rent, size of largest image file (in number of pixels),
site-specific e-mail (that is, reply-to e-mail), and information
associated with the following Internet listing service tags
(XXTAGS): “xstreet1” (that is, address or first cross street),
“xstreet2” (that is, second cross street), “city,” “state,”
“catsAreOK” (cats allowed), “dogsAreOK” (dogs allowed),
“feedisclosure,” and “company name.”
2. The second set of data was coded based on other aspects
of the advertisement or the landlord not directly available
from the scraping tool: real estate or management company,
agent name, name of owner, reference number, e-mail
address (from body of text), phone numbers, street address,
cross streets, city or town, ZIP code, state, additional unit
information, broker fee, broker fee amount, application
fee, security deposit, security deposit amount, other fee,
other fee amount, rent discount offered, description of
rent discount, lease in ad, lease term, equal opportunity
statement, protected class restriction, links to external
URLs, full text of listing, and the presence or absence of
the following key words and phrases: “equal opportunity
housing,” “female,” “senior,” “section 8,” “vacation,” “per
week,” “weekly,” “move in special,” “immediately,” and
“before the first of the next month.”
3. The test administrator coded data in the Access database
about the process by which the correspondence tests were
conducted. These data included the name of the prospective
renters used in the test, the names of their spouses or part-
ners, the sexual orientation depicted in the e-mail, the
specific e-mail text, the subject line, the e-mail domain, the
order in which the e-mails were sent (that is, whose e-mail
was sent to the provider first), and the time and date when
the e-mail was sent.
4. The final set of data that each test administrator coded into
the Access database included the response that each test
e-mail received (or did not receive) from the housing provider.
After test administrators conducted the correspondence test,
they coded the data from the housing provider responses

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
11
as they came into the prospective renters’ e-mail inboxes
during a 2-week period. The response was linked to the
Access spreadsheet, and the content of the response was
coded. The data collected on the responses included—
a. Whether each prospective renter received a response.
b. Whether they received more than one response.
c. Whether they were told the advertised unit is available.
d. Whether they were invited to inspect the unit.
e. Whether they were advised to call the housing provider.
f. Whether they were asked to provide additional informa-
tion regarding their quality as an applicant (for example,
their credit score or income).
g. Whether they were reminded about qualifications they
must possess to rent the unit.
h. Whether they were given a reason for the unit not being
available (if the unit was not available).
i. Whether they were sent an ambiguous sign of availability
(for example, “The unit is technically available, but an
application has been filled out and we’re pretty sure it’s
going to go through”).
j. Whether they were encouraged to look at a different unit
owned by the same landlord (for example, “This unit
actually isn’t available, but I have another unit in the
same building you might be interested in”).

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
12
Data Analysis
The study provides national-level estimates of gross and net
adverse treatment separately for gay male and lesbian couples,
by legislative status (whether the advertised unit is in an area
covered by state-level protections for gay men and lesbians)
and by the size of metropolitan areas. The results provide
margin-of-error estimates for the gross and net measures.
Each test consisted of an e-mail inquiry from the same-sex
couple and the heterosexual control couple. Results from the
e-mail tests were analyzed to determine whether the gay male
or lesbian prospective renter was treated unfavorably relative to
the control, heterosexual prospective renter. Previous studies of
housing market discrimination showed that housing providers
can respond in various ways, both favorable and unfavorable.
The study looked at five response outcomes, starting with
whether the test e-mails received any response at all from the
housing provider and continuing through increasing levels of
contact and encouragement. More specifically, the outcomes
included whether the test renter (1) received a response,
(2) received more than one response, (3) was told the unit
was available, (4) was invited to inspect the unit, and (5) was
told to contact the provider. (Although 10 potential response
variables were contemplated, only these 5 had sufficient
responses to be included in the analysis.)
For each test, the response to the e-mail inquiry from each couple
was categorized by whether the inquiry received a favorable
response. We consider a favorable response to mean a response
in which the tester received affirmative values on any of the five
outcomes listed previously (for example, received a response
and was told the unit was available).
Gross and Net Measures of Adverse
Treatment
The gross measure of adverse treatment is the proportion of tests
in which the heterosexual control couple’s inquiry receives favor -
able treatment and the gay male or lesbian couple’s inquiry
receives unfavorable treatment during the housing transac-
tion. Let Y
ij
denote the audit outcome of favorable (Y = 1) or
unfavorable (Y = 0) for test i for couple j (j = 0 if heterosexual
[control] and j = 1 if gay male or lesbian for test i). Differential
treatment that is unfavorable to the gay male or lesbian tester
will occur when Y
i0
= 1, Y
i1
= 0. The gross measure of adverse
treatment is expressed as:
Gross Measure = P[Yi0 = 1, Yi1 = 0].
We estimate the gross measure of adverse treatment at the
national level for:
1. Gay male and lesbian couples.
2. State-level protections against housing discrimination based
on sexual orientation.
a. Markets with protections.
b. Markets without protections.
3. Market size.
a. Small-to-medium (100,000 ≤ population < 400,000).
b. Medium (400,000 ≤ population < 750,000).
c. Large (750,000 ≤ population < 1,500,000).
d. Very large (1,500,000 ≤ population < 5,000,000).
e. Largest (population ≥ 5,000,000).
We provide estimates of the gross measure and the associ-
ated margin of error at a 95-percent level of confidence. The
estimated standard errors associated with the measures vary
because of the differing sample sizes within each group. The
corresponding margin of error is computed as:
Margin of Error
Gross
= z
c
x
σ
n
σ
n
,
where
Margin of Error
Gross
= z
c
x
σ
n
σ
n
is the standard error and z
c
= 1.96 at 95 percent
confidence.
The gross measure of discrimination only estimates the likeli-
hood that the control couple is favored relative to the gay male
or lesbian couple and could overstate incidences of discrimina-
tion. In addition to the gross measure, we compute the net
measure of discrimination, the difference in the proportion of
tests in which the control couple’s (that is, the heterosexual
couple’s) inquiry receives a favorable outcome relative to the
same-sex couple’s inquiry and the proportion of tests in which
the same-sex couple’s inquiry is favored over the control couple’s
inquiry. The net measure of adverse treatment is expressed as:
Net Measure = P[Y
i0
= 1, Y
i1
= 0] - P[Y
i0
= 0, Y
i1
= 1].
Whereas the gross measure represents a test of one proportion,
the net measure represents a test of differences in proportions;
thus, the standard error and resulting margin of error estimates
differ.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
13
The margin of error estimate for the net measure is represented as:
Margin of Error
Gross
= z
c
x σ
p
2
– p
2
σ
p
2
– p
2
,
where z
c
= 1.96 at 95 percent confidence and
Margin of Error
Gross
= z
c
x σ
p
2
– p
2
σ
p
2
– p
2
represents the standard error of the difference in the proportions and is
expressed as:
+
P[Y
i0
= 1, Y
i1
= 0] x 1 – P[Y
i0
= 1, Y
i1
= 0]
n
1
P[Y
i0
= 0, Y
i1
= 1] x 1 – P[Y
i0
= 0, Y
i1
= 1]
n
2
.
consistency index if the heterosexual couple received favorable
treatment on at least one of the five outcomes measures and the
corresponding same-sex couple received no favorable treatment.
Tests are classified as “gay male favored” or “lesbian favored” if
the same-sex couple received favorable treatment on at least
one of the five outcomes and the heterosexual couple received
no favorable treatment. Each of these consistency measures
represents the gross measures. The net measure of the consist-
ency index is calculated by taking the difference between the
heterosexual-favored index and the gay male-favored or lesbian-
favored index.
For a matched-pair test, the number of tests for heterosexual
and same-sex couples are equal (that is, n
1
= n
2
= n).
The overall objective of the study was to estimate gross measures
of adverse treatment of same-sex couples. We also calculate
composite measures of housing discrimination against gay male
and lesbian prospective renters. Similar to previous HDS stud-
ies, we estimate consistency measures, which reflect the extent
to which one tester is consistently favored over the other in
the treatment received from housing providers based on their
inquiries. Tests are classified as “heterosexual favored” on the

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
14
Findings
This section presents the findings from the data analysis, focus-
ing on the gross and net measures of discrimination and on the
consistency indexes. First, we present the national-level estimates
of the adverse treatment of gay male and lesbian couples, relative
to heterosexual couples. We then calculate estimates of adverse
treatment by legislative status (whether the advertised unit is
in an area covered by state-level protections against housing
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) and the size
of the metropolitan area in which the unit is advertised. The
data were gathered from June through October 2011. For the
five dependent variables of interest, each correspondence test
could result in one of four outcomes: (1) both testers received
equivalent responses, (2) neither tester is favored, (3) the hetero -
sexual couple is favored, or (4) the gay male or lesbian couple
is favored. As discussed in the previous section, the gross meas-
ure of adverse treatment refers to when the correspondence test
favors heterosexual couples. The net measure takes the differ-
ence between the proportion of tests favoring the heterosexual
couple and the proportion of tests favoring the gay male or
lesbian couple. The consistency index is a summary measure
of the treatment of heterosexual couples relative to gay male
and lesbian couples on all five variables.
Table 2 presents the variables of interest and their definitions.
Table 2. Outcome Variables
Variable Definition
(1) Response provided Whether each prospective renter
received a response.
(2) More than one response Whether they received more than one
response.
(3) Available Whether they were told the advertised
unit was available.
(4) Inspect Whether they were invited to inspect
the unit.
(5) Contact Whether they were advised to call the
housing provider.
National-Level Estimates of
Discrimination
Treatment of Gay Male Couples as
Compared With Heterosexual Couples
Table 3 presents the outcomes of the e-mail correspondence tests
between gay male and heterosexual couples at the national level.
Table 3 shows that, in 49.3 percent of the e-mail correspondence
tests between heterosexual and gay male couples (column 1),
both couples received a response from the housing provider. In
30.6 percent of the tests (column 2), neither the heterosexual
couple nor the gay male couple received a response from the
housing provider. Thus, in 79.9 percent of the correspondence
tests, heterosexual and gay male couples received equal treatment.
On the gross and net measures of adverse treatment in terms of
the “response provided” variable (columns 3, 4, and 5), hetero -
sexual couples were significantly more likely than gay male
couples to get a response from housing providers. In 11.6 per-
cent of the correspondence tests, only the heterosexual couple
received a response from housing providers compared with the
8.5 percent of tests in which only the gay male couple received
a response. The net measure (3.1 percent) was statistically
significant.
On the other four variables (that is, whether the tester received
more than one response, was told the unit was available, was
invited to inspect the unit, and was told to contact the provider),
the results in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3 demonstrate that,
except for the “contact” variable, a slightly greater share of tests
favored heterosexual couples over gay male couples. The net
measures in column 5, however, show that none of the differ-
ences on these four variables is statistically significant.
Table 3. National-Level Gay Male-Heterosexual Tests
NA = not applicable.
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.
Note: The results are weighted to normalize the population levels. Unweighted results are substantially the same and are available upon request.
Outcome
Percent Tester Favored
Both (%) None (%) Heterosexual (%) Gay Male (%) Net Measure (%) N
(1) Response provided 49.3 30.6 11.6 8.5 3.1** 3,424
(2) More than one response 6.1 88.8 2.6 2.6 0.0 1,681
(3) Available 71.9 22.0 3.5 2.6 0.9 1,681
(4) Inspect 66.9 24.1 4.7 4.3 0.4 1,681
(5) Contact 49.4 39.0 5.7 6.0 – 0.3 1,681
(6) Consistency index NA NA 15.9 13.7 2.2* 3,424

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
15
The consistency index in the last row of Table 3 mirrors the
findings for each of the five outcomes analyzed separately. In
15.9 percent of the correspondence tests, the heterosexual
couple was favored on at least one of the five outcomes and
the gay male couple was favored on none of the outcomes. In
13.7 percent of the tests, the gay male couple was favored on
at least one of the five outcomes and the heterosexual couple
was favored on none of the outcomes. The difference between
the two indexes, or net measure (column 5), is statistically
significant.
In sum, the results of the correspondence tests between hetero-
sexual and gay male couples demonstrate that the most consis-
tent form of adverse treatment against gay male couples is the
lack of an initial e-mail response from housing providers. Gay
male couples were significantly less likely than heterosexual
couples to receive a response from the housing provider, a
result that suggests discriminatory barriers at the very threshold
of the rental housing search. No significant difference emerged
between gay male and heterosexual couples regarding the other
four variables, which gauge different aspects of the interaction
that take place deeper into the search for rental housing.
Treatment of Lesbian Couples as
Compared With Heterosexual Couples
Table 4 presents the outcomes of our e-mail correspondence
tests between lesbian and heterosexual couples at the national
level. The pattern of results is similar to that of the correspon-
dence tests between gay male and heterosexual couples. Table 4
shows that, in 49.4 percent of the tests (column 1), both couples
received a response from the housing provider. In 30.5 percent
of the tests (column 2), neither the heterosexual couple nor the
lesbian couple received a response from the housing provider.
Thus, in 79.9 percent of the correspondence tests, heterosexual
and lesbian couples received equal treatment.
On the gross and net measures of adverse treatment in terms
of the “response provided” variable (columns 3, 4, and 5),
heterosexual couples clearly were significantly more likely
than lesbian couples to get a response from housing providers,
although the magnitude of the difference was slightly less than
in the tests between heterosexual and gay male couples. In
11.2 percent of the correspondence tests, only the heterosexual
couple received a response from housing providers compared
with the 8.9 percent of tests in which only the lesbian couple
received a response. The net measure (2.3 percent) was statisti-
cally significant but of less magnitude than the net measure on
the same variable in the gay male-heterosexual tests.
On the other four variables of interest, the results in columns 3
and 4 of Table 4 show that, by contrast to the gay male-
heterosexual tests, the lesbian couples were favored in a slightly
greater share of the tests than the heterosexual couple. The
net measures in column 5 show that the “contact” variable is
significant in the negative direction, indicating that the lesbian
couple receives favorable treatment compared with that of the
heterosexual couple. Although this result is unexpected, the
magnitude is quite small (1.6 percent). On the other hand,
the result for the variable “more than one response” is in the
expected direction, with heterosexual couples significantly
more likely to be favored than lesbian couples. With respect
to the consistency measures in the last row of Table 4, in 15.6
percent of the correspondence tests, the heterosexual couple
was favored on at least one of the five outcomes and the lesbian
couple was favored on none of the outcomes. In 14.3 percent
of the tests, the lesbian couple was favored on at least one of
the five outcomes and the heterosexual couple was favored on
none of the outcomes. The difference between the two indexes
(column 5) is not statistically significant.
In sum, the results of the correspondence tests between
heterosexual and lesbian couples reveal that the most prevalent
form of adverse treatment against lesbian couples is not get-
ting an e-mail response from housing providers as often as
heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were significantly less
likely than heterosexual couples to receive a response from
the housing provider, a result that, as for gay male couples,
Table 4. National-Level Lesbian-Heterosexual Tests
NA = not applicable.
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.
Note: The results are weighted to normalize the population levels. Unweighted results are substantially the same and are available upon request.
Outcome
Percent Tester Favored
Both (%) None (%) Heterosexual (%) Lesbian (%) Net Measure (%) N
(1) Response provided 49.4 30.5 11.2 8.9 2.3** 3,409
(2) More than one response 7.3 86.2 4.1 2.4 1.7** 1,679
(3) Available 71.7 21.3 3.4 3.6 – 0.2 1,679
(4) Inspect 67.3 24.5 3.6 4.7 – 1.1 1,679
(5) Contact 49.0 41.3 4.1 5.7 – 1.6* 1,679
(6) Consistency index NA NA 15.6 14.3 1.3 3,409

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
16
suggests discriminatory barriers at the threshold of the rental
housing search. Although lesbian couples are also significantly
less likely to have received more than one response from the
housing provider, they are significantly more likely to be
advised to contact the housing provider. This mixed pattern is
worthy of further investigation.
Estimates of Discrimination by
Legislative Jurisdiction
Effect of Legislative Protections for Gay
Male Couples
Table 5 presents the outcomes of our e-mail correspondence
tests between gay male and heterosexual couples, disaggregated
by whether the advertised unit was in a state with legislative
protections against housing discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The results in the table present the gross and net
measures and the consistency indexes. The level of equal treat-
ment is about the same as that shown in Table 3.
On the gross and net measures of adverse treatment in terms
of the “response provided” variable (the first row of Table 5),
legislative protections appear to do little to change the overall
pattern of results found in Table 3. In states both with and
without protections for sexual orientation, heterosexual couples
were significantly more likely than gay male couples to get a
response from housing providers. In protected states, in 11.6
percent of the correspondence tests, only the heterosexual
couple received a response from housing providers compared
with the 8.3 percent of tests in which only the gay male couple
received a response. The net measure (3.2 percent) was statisti-
cally significant. In unprotected states, in 11.5 percent of the
tests, only the heterosexual couple received a response from
housing providers, compared to 8.3 percent of tests in which
only the gay male couple received a response. The net measure
(3.2 percent) was statistically significant.
On the other four variables of interest, the results in Table 5
indicate that, in states with protections, a slightly greater share
of tests favored heterosexual couples over gay male couples.
The net measures for Legislatively Protected, however, show
that none of the differences on these four variables is statisti-
cally significant. In unprotected states, a slightly greater share
of tests favored heterosexual couples over gay male couples on
the variables “available” and “inspect.” On the variables “more
than one response” and “contact,” however, a slightly greater
share of tests favored gay male couples over heterosexual
couples. The net measures for Not Legislatively Protected show
that none of these differences is statistically significant.
The results for the consistency indexes in the last row of Table 5
illustrate a negative effect of legislative protections. In 16.0 per -
cent of the Legislatively Protected correspondence tests, the
heterosexual couple was favored on at least one of the five
out comes and the gay male couple was favored on none of the
outcomes. In 12.9 percent of the tests, the gay male couple was
favored on at least one of the five outcomes and the heterosexual
couple was favored on none of the outcomes. The difference
between the two indexes, or net measure (column 4), is statisti-
cally significant. The Not Legislatively Protected columns in
Table 5, however, reveal that the net measure (1.6 percent) is
not statistically significant in states with no state-level protections
against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The slightly greater prevalence of gay male-favored treatment
on the “more than one response” and “contact” variables likely
accounts for the lack of significance of the net measure in
unprotected states.
The results of the correspondence tests between heterosexual
and gay male couples, disaggregated by legislative protections,
demonstrate that adverse treatment against gay male couples,
regardless of legislative jurisdiction, consists of whether they
received an initial e-mail response from housing providers.
Legislative protections appear not to confer an advantage to gay
male couples by protecting them from adverse treatment in
this respect. Several factors could account for this unexpected
Table 5. Gay Male-Heterosexual Tests by State Protection
** p ≤ .01.
Outcome
Percent Tester Favored
Legislatively Protected Not Legislatively Protected
Heterosexual
(%)
Gay Male
(%)
Net Measure
(%)
N
Heterosexual
(%)
Gay Male
(%)
Net Measure
(%)
N
(1) Response provided 11.6 8.3 3.2** 1,548 11.5 8.3 3.2** 1,876
(2) More than one response 2.7 2.6 0.1 780 2.8 2.9 – 0.1 901
(3) Available 3.6 2.6 1.0 780 3.4 2.6 0.9 901
(4) Inspect 4.1 3.6 0.5 780 5.4 4.4 1.0 901
(5) Contact 6.0 5.6 0.4 780 4.9 4.1 – 1.2 901
(6) Consistency index 16.0 12.9 3.1** 1,548 15.4 13.9 1.6 1,876

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
17
finding, including potentially low levels of enforcement, hous-
ing provider unfamiliarity with state-level protections, or that
protections exist in states with the greatest need for them.
Effect of Legislative Protections for
Lesbian Couples
Table 6 presents the outcomes of our e-mail correspondence
tests between lesbian and heterosexual couples, disaggregated
by whether the advertised unit was in a state with legislative
protections against housing discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The results in the table present the gross and net
measures and the consistency indexes. The level of equal treat-
ment is about the same as that shown in Table 4.
On the gross and net measures of adverse treatment in terms
of the “response provided” variable (the first row of Table 6),
legislative protections appear to affect the overall pattern of
results found in Table 4. In protected states, the percentage of
tests favoring heterosexual couples (10.8) and those favoring
lesbian couples (9.2) exhibit no difference in terms of receiving
a response from housing providers. The net measure (1.7 per -
cent) is not statistically significant. In unprotected states, how-
ever, heterosexual couples were significantly more likely than
lesbian couples to get a response from housing providers. In
unprotected states, in 11.3 percent of the correspondence tests,
only the heterosexual couple received a response from housing
providers compared with the 9.1 percent of tests in which only
the lesbian couple received a response. The net measure (2.3
percent) was statistically significant.
Another pattern in Table 6 that diverges from the pattern at the
national level of analysis is that, in unprotected states, a slightly
greater share of the correspondence tests favored heterosexual
couples over lesbian couples in terms of receiving more than
one response from housing providers. In 3.9 percent of the Not
Legislatively Protected correspondence tests, only the hetero-
sexual couple received more than one response from housing
providers compared with the 1.8 percent of tests in which only
the lesbian couple received more than one response. The net
measure (2.1 percent) is statistically significant. In protected
states, the net measure for “received more than one response”
is not significant.
On the other three variables of interest, the results in Table 6
show no statistically significant differences. In states with protec-
tions, a slightly greater share of tests favor heterosexual couples
over lesbian couples on the variables “available,” “inspect,” and
“contact.” The net measures for Legislatively Protected, however,
reveal that none of the differences on these three variables is
statistically significant. In unprotected states, a slightly greater
share of tests favor lesbian couples over heterosexual couples
on the variables “available,” “inspect,” and “contact.” The net
measures for Not Legislatively Protected show that none of
these differences is statistically significant, however.
By contrast to the results for “response provided” and “more
than one response” examined individually, the results for the
consistency indexes in the last row of Table 6 show no effect
of legislative protections. In 15.9 percent of the Legislatively
Protected correspondence tests, the heterosexual couple was
favored on at least one of the five outcomes and the lesbian
couple was favored on none of the outcomes. In 14.5 percent
of the tests, the lesbian couple was favored on at least one of
the five outcomes and the heterosexual couple was favored on
none of the outcomes. The difference between the two indexes,
or net measure, is not statistically significant in protected or
unprotected states. In sum, the results of the correspondence
tests between heterosexual and lesbian couples, disaggregated
by legislative protections, reveal that adverse treatment against
lesbian couples, in terms of getting an initial e-mail response
from housing providers and getting more than one response, is
more prevalent in states without legislative protections. Unlike
the case with gay male couples, legislative protections do ap-
pear to confer some advantages to lesbian couples in preventing
them from experiencing adverse treatment, consistent with our
hypothesis.
Table 6. Lesbian-Heterosexual Tests by State Protection
Outcome
Percent Tester Favored
Legislatively Protected Not Legislatively Protected
Heterosexual
(%)
Lesbian
(%)
Net Measure
(%)
N
Heterosexual
(%)
Lesbian
(%)
Net Measure
(%)
N
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.
(1) Response provided 10.8 9.2 1.7 1,558 11.3 9.1 2.3* 1,851
(2) More than one response 3.6 3.5 0.1 796 3.9 1.8 2.1** 883
(3) Available 4.0 3.6 0.4 796 3.2 3.7 – 0.6 883
(4) Inspect 4.5 4.3 0.3 796 3.6 4.3 – 0.7 883
(5) Contact 5.3 4.4 0.9 796 4.2 6.2 – 2.0 883
(6) Consistency index 15.9 14.5 1.4 1,558 15.3 14.1 1.2 1,851

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
18
Estimates of Discrimination by
Metropolitan Market Size
Table 7 presents the outcomes of our e-mail correspondence
tests between gay male and heterosexual couples, disaggregated
by five categories of metropolitan area based on the total popu-
lation: (1) small to medium (100,000 to 399,999), (2) medium
(400,000 to 749,999), (3) large (750,000 to 1,499,999), (4) very
large (1,500,000 to 4,999,999), and (5) largest (5,000,000 or
more). For the sake of brevity, the results in the table focus on
the net measures and consistency indexes.
Table 7 presents no clear-cut pattern in the effect of metropoli-
tan market size on the net measures of adverse treatment of
gay male couples relative to heterosexual couples. The results
for the “response provided” variable appear to indicate that
a greater share of tests favored heterosexual couples over gay
male couples. Only the net measure for the largest stratum (6.0
percent) is statistically significant, however (see column 5).
In the very large stratum, a slightly greater share of tests favored
heterosexual couples over gay male couples on the variables
“available” and “inspect.” The net difference measures in column 4
(1.7 and 1.9 percent, respectively) are statistically significant.
None of the net measures in the other categories of metropolitan
market size for the other four variables is statistically significant.
The results for the consistency indexes in the last row of Table 7
also do not reveal any clear-cut pattern of adverse treatment.
Only in the case of the largest stratum is the net measure (4.9
percent) statistically significant. The greater prevalence of
heterosexual-favored treatment on the “response provided”
variable in that stratum likely accounts for the significance of
the net measure for the consistency index.
In sum, the results of the correspondence tests between het-
erosexual and gay male couples, disaggregated by metropolitan
market size, reveal that the effect of metropolitan market size
on adverse treatment is not straightforward. In the largest
stratum, consistent with the national-level results, the adverse
treatment of gay male couples existed in the form of not getting
an e-mail response (the results are insignificant for the other
market sizes). In the very large stratum, heterosexual couples
were significantly more likely than gay male couples to be told
that the unit was available (that is, the difference is 1.7 percent-
age points) and to be invited to inspect the unit (that is, the
difference is 1.9 percentage points).
Table 8 presents the outcomes of our e-mail correspondence
tests between lesbian and heterosexual couples, disaggregated
by categories of metropolitan market size. Like the results for
the gay male-heterosexual correspondence tests, the results in
Table 8 reveal no clear-cut pattern in the effect of metropolitan
market size on the net measures of adverse treatment of lesbian
couples, relative to heterosexual couples. The results for the
“response provided” variable (the first row in Table 8) appear
to indicate that a greater share of tests favored heterosexual
couples over lesbian couples. Only the net measure for the
small-to-medium stratum (8.2 percent) is statistically signifi-
cant, however (see column 1).
On the other four variables of interest, the results in Table 8
show that, in the large stratum, a slightly greater share of tests
favored heterosexual couples over lesbian couples on the
variable “more than one response.” The net measure for this
variable reveals that the difference (4.5 percentage points) is
statistically significant. Contrary to our expectations, within
the same metropolitan market size category, the results show
that a slightly greater share of tests favored lesbian couples over
heterosexual couples on the variable “contact.” The net measure
(-5.1 percent) for this variable is statistically significant. None
of the net measures in the other categories of metropolitan mar-
ket size for the other four variables is statistically significant.
Consistent with the results disaggregated by legislative protec-
tions, the results for the consistency indexes in the last row of
Table 8 show that none of the net measures are statistically sig-
nificant. Taken together, the results of the correspondence tests
between heterosexual and lesbian couples, disaggregated by
metropolitan market size, reveal that the effect of metropolitan
market size on adverse treatment is not straightforward.
Table 7. Gay Male-Heterosexual Net Measures by Metropolitan Market Size
Outcome
Net Measure (%)
Small-to-Medium
(100,000–400,000)
Medium
(400,000–750,000)
Large
(750,000–1.5 million)
Very Large
(1.5–5 million)
Largest
(5+ million)
(1) Response provided 4.0 1.2 3.9 1.9 6.0**
(2) More than one response 3.1 0.8 – 1.1 – 0.8 1.4
(3) Available – 3.1 0.8 1.6 1.7* – 0.2
(4) Inspect – 1.6 0.8 – 1.6 1.9* – 0.2
(5) Contact – 7.8 3.0 0.5 – 0.1 – 1.6
(6) Consistency index 0.0 2.8 2.3 1.0 4.9**
Total audits/audits in which both testers
received response
124/64 250/133 387/182 1,763/877 900/425
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
19
Table 8. Lesbian-Heterosexual Net Measures by Metropolitan Market Size
Outcome
Net Measure (%)
Small-to-Medium
(100,000–400,000)
Medium
(400,000–750,000)
Large
(750,000–1.5 million)
Very Large
(1.5–5 million)
Largest
(5+ million)
(1) Response provided 8.2* 2.8 2.7 1.2 2.2
(2) More than one response 5.4 2.1 4.5* 0.7 – 0.2
(3) Available 1.8 1.4 – 2.3 0.0 – 0.2
(4) Inspect 3.6 – 5.7 – 2.8 – 0.5 2.6
(5) Contact – 5.4 – 3.6 – 5.1* 0.0 1.4
(6) Consistency index 8.2 0.8 0.3 0.8 2.0
Total audits/audits in which both testers
received response
122/56 253/140 373/177 1,761/880 900/426
* p ≤ .05.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
20
Conclusions and Implications
This is the first national-scale, paired-testing study to assess
rental housing discrimination against same-sex couples in
metropolitan rental markets that selects properties via Internet
advertising. In addition, the study calculates estimates of
adverse treatment by state-level protections and by the size of
metropolitan areas.
From June through October 2011, same-sex couples
experienced significant levels of adverse treatment relative to
comparable heterosexual couples when they responded to
electronically advertised rental housing in metropolitan rental
housing markets nationwide. Our gross estimates of discrimi-
nation, which reflect the extent to which heterosexual couples
were consistently favored over gay male or lesbian couples,
are 15.9 and 15.6 percent, respectively. These estimates from
2011, which are based on e-mail correspondence tests, are
comparable to, but lower in magnitude than, the incidence
of consistently White-favored treatment, relative to Black and
Hispanic homeseekers, found through in-person audits in
HDS2000 (that is, 21.6 and 25.7 percent, respectively). The
net measures (or lower bound estimates of discrimination)
reported in this study, as based on the consistency indexes,
are 2.2 percent (gay male-heterosexual tests) and 1.3 percent
(lesbian-heterosexual tests), and only the former is statistically
significant. Although the magnitude of the level of discrimina-
tion reflected by the net measure is considerably lower than
that conveyed by the gross measure, it is nearly the same as
the net measure reflecting the treatment of White prospective
renters relative to Black prospective renters in HDS2000 (that
is, 2.3 percent, not statistically significant).
Discrimination against gay men and lesbians appears to take a
relatively consistent form in the rental housing market. Adverse
treatment of same-sex couples stems largely from the lower
likelihood that housing providers will respond to their initial
e-mail compared with the greater likelihood that heterosexual
couples will receive a response. Given that this study employed
the use of paired correspondence tests rather than in-person,
paired tests, and given that it allowed for only one e-mail inter-
action between each tester and the housing provider, the esti-
mates of discrimination presented here could underestimate the
extent to which heterosexual couples are favored over same-sex
couples in the rental housing market. In addition, relatively
few tests were conducted in smaller metropolitan areas, where
some researchers hypothesize that more discrimination occurs.
Nevertheless, it is helpful to know that the results of this study
are reasonably consistent with the results from HDS2000,
which examined racial and ethnic disparities in access to rental
housing and conducted in-person tests rather than e-mail cor-
respondence tests.
Disaggregating the results by state-level legislative protec-
tions reveals some findings that run contrary to our main
expectation. The results of the correspondence tests between
heterosexual and gay male couples show that adverse treat-
ment against male couples in the form of getting an initial
e-mail response from housing providers exists in states with
and without legislative protections. Legislative protections for
sexual orientation appear not to confer an immediate advantage
to gay male couples in whether they experience adverse treat-
ment. By contrast, for lesbian couples, the results imply that
adverse treatment in the form of whether an e-mail response
was received from housing providers and in whether more than
one response was received is more apparent in states without
legislative protections. Unlike what the results suggest for gay
male couples, legislative protections do appear to confer a
slight advantage to lesbian couples in preventing them from
experiencing adverse treatment, a finding that is consistent with
expectations. It could be that places with legislative protections
have higher levels of discrimination against same-sex couples
than those without protections. It is possible that a historically
higher level of discrimination in such places necessitated the
protections. Such protections take time to work, and it is pos-
sible that disparities could be higher in places with protections
because of this adjustment period, given the recent passage of
many of the protections.
The results of the correspondence tests between heterosexual
and same-sex couples, disaggregated by metropolitan market
size, are not straightforward for either gay male or lesbian cou-
ples. Consistent with the national-level results, we find some
adverse treatment of gay male and lesbian couples regarding
their getting an initial e-mail response. For gay male couples,
the adverse treatment exists only in the very large stratum of
markets. For lesbians, it exists only in the small-to-medium
stratum. It is not clear what accounts for this pattern of results.
Although its use of paired testing via correspondence tests and
its national scope are strengths, the study design is limited
to tests of rental housing that is in metropolitan markets and
advertised by one source on the Internet. Moreover, it captures
the treatment of testers by housing providers in response to

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
21
only one e-mail sent by each tester and, therefore, does not
consider what could happen to testers through additional
contacts with the housing provider (via additional followup
e-mails, by phone, or in person). Thus, the testing conducted
in this study is representative of only the initial stage of the
housing search process.
The contribution of this study is that it demonstrates that
same-sex couples are significantly less likely than heterosexual
couples to be able to access the targeted rental unit. When
same-sex couples do receive a response, however, their treat-
ment by housing providers relative to that of heterosexual
couples is roughly equivalent. This type of discrimination is
somewhat divergent from that which has been found between
White and non-White renters. In large part, the disparity
between White and non-White applicants is less in terms of
receiving a response from providers or initial access to the unit
than it is in terms of subsequent potential contact with provid-
ers (for example, more than one response or the potential to
inspect the unit).
Recommendations for Further Study
Because these data are the first national-scale findings about
discrimination against same-sex couples in the metropolitan
rental housing market, the study serves as a point of departure
for future research on same-sex housing discrimination. Future
research should conduct further testing, including e-mail and
in-person testing, and look at a variety of specific aspects of
disparate treatment that were beyond the scope of this project.
This study provides an initial look at how same-sex couples are
treated relative to heterosexual couples at the threshold of the
rental housing search—the initial e-mail contact. It sampled
only rental housing advertised on one Internet listing service.
Because of the limited universe of available rental properties
and the single initial contact, this study possibly underestimates
the extent to which same-sex couples face discrimination in
the rental housing market compared with the treatment of
heterosexual couples. The study was conducted via e-mail
correspondence tests, and the e-mails contained information
to ensure that the housing provider knew if the couple seeking
housing was of the same sex or heterosexual. In-person audits
might, however, yield higher levels of discrimination against
same-sex couples because providers would observe visual cues
that would unequivocally establish the sexual orientation of the
homeseekers and could result in discriminatory actions.
Other areas for future inquiry include a deeper look at the next
steps in the rental process, through follow-up e-mail commu-
nication to confirm interest in the unit and, more importantly,
to request an appointment; telephone contacts to confirm an
appointment; and in-person visits to housing providers by
testers. In-person testing would provide valuable, additional
information on the experiences of same-sex couples in the
rental market, replicate the approach of other HDS research,
and track the real-life sequence of a rental housing search.
A broader sample of advertised rental units, including other
electronic media and print advertisements, could be used for
in-person testing.
In addition, future studies should employ e-mail or in-person
audits to further examine differences in treatment of same-sex
and heterosexual couples in states with and without legislative
protections for sexual orientation or gender identity. Local
jurisdiction protections were not within the scope of this study,
and examining their effect on differential treatment could be
very useful. In addition, this study looked only at treatment
based on sexual orientation and not at treatment based on gen-
der identity or gender expression, so it did not capture other
forms of discrimination that LGBT people might experience.
Finally, future research should seek to obtain metropolitan
area-specific estimates of discrimination against same-sex
couples. Perhaps this approach could shed light on the mixed
findings observed across metropolitan areas in this study.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
22
Technical Appendixes
Appendix A. Distribution of Population and Sample Characteristics Across
Proposed Population Stratum
MSA = metropolitan statistical area. PMSA = primary metropolitan statistical area.
Population Size Stratum
Population Characteristics (%) Sample Characteristics (%)
Percent of
Total
MSA/PMSA
Percent of
Population
Percent of
Same-Sex
Households
Market Within
Stratum Percent
of Sample
Total
Target Number of
Paired Tests
Within Stratum
Percent of
Total Target
Number of Paired
Tests Within Stratum
Less than 100,000 5.7 0.7 0.6 0.0 — 0.0
100,000 to 250,000 37.8 8.6 7.4 5.9 180 2.0
250,000 to 400,000 14.8 6.4 5.9 11.8 720 7.9
400,000 to 750,000 18.7 13.6 12.2 21.6 1,364 15.0
750,000 to 1,500,000 9.7 14.1 13.4 13.7 1,400 15.4
1,500,000 to 5,000,000 11.5 38.6 41.6 35.3 3,636 40.0
5,000,000 or more 1.8 18.0 18.9 11.8 1,800 19.8
Total 100 100 100 100 9,100 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
23
Appendix B. Weighted Results and Standard Errors
Weighted Computed S.E.
Number
of Paired
Tests
Percent
Hetero-
sexual
Favored
Percent
Same-Sex
Favored
Net
Measure
N
Gross Measure Net Measure
Label in Word File Test Type S.E.
MOE
[95%]
MOE
[90%]
S.E.
MOE
[95%]
MOE
[90%]
p-Value
(2-Tailed
t Test)
(1) Response
provided
Lesbian-heterosexual 3,409 11.2 8.9 2.3 6,818 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012 0.002**
Gay male-heterosexual 3,424 11.6 8.5 3.1 6,848 0.004 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012 0.000**
(2) More than one
response
Lesbian-heterosexual 1,679 4.1 2.4 1.7 3,358 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.012 0.010 0.005**
Gay male-heterosexual 1,681 2.6 2.6 0.0 3,362 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.009 1.000
(3) Available Lesbian-heterosexual 1,679 3.4 3.6 – 0.2 3,358 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.012 0.010 0.753
Gay male-heterosexual 1,681 3.5 2.6 0.9 3,362 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.012 0.010 0.129
(4) Inspect Lesbian-heterosexual 1,679 3.6 4.7 – 1.1 3,358 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.013 0.011 0.110
Gay male-heterosexual 1,681 4.7 4.3 0.4 3,362 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012 0.576
(5) Contact Lesbian-heterosexual 1,679 4.1 5.7 – 1.6 3,358 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.015 0.012 0.032*
Gay male-heterosexual 1,681 5.7 6.0 – 0.3 3,362 0.004 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.016 0.013 0.711
(6) Consistency
index
Lesbian-heterosexual 3,409 15.6 14.3 1.3 6,818 0.004 0.009 0.007 0.009 0.017 0.014 0.132
Gay male-heterosexual 3,424 15.9 13.7 2.2 6,848 0.004 0.009 0.007 0.009 0.017 0.014 0.010*
MOE = margin of error. S.E. = standard error.
* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01.

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
27
Appendix E. Data Dictionary
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
1 AuditID Audit ID Number assigned
for the audit
2 strata Metro Size Strata 1 = small (100,000 to 249,999)
2 = medium (250,000 to
3999,999)
3 = medium-to-large (400,000
to 749,999)
4 = large (750,000 to 1,499,999)
5 = very large (1,500,000 to
4,999,999)
6 = largest (5,000,000 or more)
strata Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 110 1.61 110 1.61
2 136 1.99 246 3.60
3 503 7.36 749 10.96
4 760 11.12 1,509 22.08
5 3,524 51.57 5,033 73.66
6 1,800 26.34 6,833 100.00
3 GeoState State State in which
housing inquiry
occurred
State Postal Codes
GeoState Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
AZ 228 3.34 228 3.34
CA 885 12.95 1,113 16.29
CO 228 3.34 1,341 19.63
CT 6 0.09 1,347 19.71
DC 99 1.45 1,446 21.16
FL 356 5.21 1,802 26.37
GA 356 5.21 2,158 31.58
ID 6 0.09 2,164 31.67
IL 334 4.89 2,498 36.56
IN 12 0.18 2,510 36.73
KY 81 1.19 2,591 37.92
MA 83 1.21 2,674 39.13
MD 87 1.27 2,761 40.41
MI 305 4.46 3,066 44.87
MN 223 3.26 3,289 48.13
MO 286 4.19 3,575 52.32
NC 105 1.54 3,680 53.86
NM 103 1.51 3,783 55.36
NY 475 6.95 4,258 62.32
OH 270 3.95 4,528 66.27
OK 20 0.29 4,548 66.56
PA 633 9.26 5,181 75.82
RI 1 0.01 5,182 75.84
SC 36 0.53 5,218 76.36
TN 154 2.25 5,372 78.62
TX 660 9.66 6,032 88.28
UT 105 1.54 6,137 89.81
VA 114 1.67 6,251 91.48
WA 345 5.05 6,596 96.53
WI 237 3.47 6,833 100.00

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
28
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
4 WrongMSAFlag Check for correct MSAs 0 = pass
1 = flag
WrongMSAFlag Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 6,829 99.94 6,829 99.94
1 4 0.06 6,833 100
5 Protected Property in State with Same
Sex Protection
0 = Unprotected
1 = Protected
Protected Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 3,727 54.54 3,727 54.54
1 3,106 45.46 6,833 100
6 Protect_Type Type of Same-sex
Protection
0 = No Protection
1 = States prohibiting housing
discrimination based on
sexual orientation and
gender identity
2 = States prohibiting housing
discriminatino based on
sexual orientation
Protect_Type Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 3,727 54.54 3,727 54.54
1 2,224 32.55 5,951 87.09
2 882 12.91 6,833 100
7 metro_aud Metro (MSA) List of MSAs sampled
Metro_aud Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
Albuquerque, NM MSA 103 1.51 103 1.51
Asheville, NC MSA 58 0.85 161 2.36
Atlanta, GA MSA 300 4.39 461 6.75
Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 132 1.93 593 8.68
Binghamton, NY MSA 47 0.69 640 9.37
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 134 1.96 774 11.33
Chicago, IL PMSA 300 4.39 1,074 15.72
Columbia, SC MSA 13 0.19 1,087 15.91
Columbus, OH MSA 180 2.63 1,267 18.54
Dallas, TX PMSA 205 3 1,472 21.54
Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA 89 1.3 1,561 22.85
Denver, CO PMSA 228 3.34 1,789 26.18
Detroit, MI PMSA 228 3.34 2,017 29.52
Fayetteville, NC MSA 18 0.26 2,035 29.78
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA 86 1.26 2,121 31.04
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland,
MI MSA
77 1.13 2,198 32.17
Greenville-Spartenburg-Anderson,
SC MSA
23 0.34 2,221 32.5
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle,
PA MSA
72 1.05 2,293 33.56
Houston, TX PMSA 227 3.32 2,520 36.88
Jacksonville, FL MSA 42 0.61 2,562 37.49
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 300 4.39 2,862 41.88
Louisville, KY-IN MSA 89 1.3 2,951 43.19
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission,
TX MSA
13 0.19 2,964 43.38
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 228 3.34 3,192 46.71
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 225 3.29 3,417 50.01
Modesto, CA MSA 42 0.61 3,459 50.62

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
29
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
7 metro_aud
(continued)
Metro (MSA) List of MSAs sampled
Metro_aud Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
Nashville, TN MSA 153 2.24 3,612 52.86
New York, NY PMSA 300 4.39 3,912 57.25
Oklahoma City, OK MSA 20 0.29 3,932 57.54
Orange County, CA PMSA 86 1.26 4,018 58.8
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 300 4.39 4,318 63.19
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 228 3.34 4,546 66.53
Pittsburgh, PA MSA 228 3.34 4,774 69.87
Racine, WI PMSA 5 0.07 4,779 69.94
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill,
NC MSA
30 0.44 4,809 70.38
Rockford, IL MSA 36 0.53 4,845 70.91
Sacramento, CA PMSA 228 3.34 5,073 74.24
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA 105 1.54 5,178 75.78
San Antonio, TX MSA 85 1.24 5,263 77.02
San Francisco, CA PMSA 228 3.34 5,491 80.36
Savannah, GA MSA 56 0.82 5,547 81.18
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton,
PA MSA
5 0.07 5,552 81.25
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA 227 3.32 5,779 84.57
Spokane, WA MSA 124 1.81 5,903 86.39
Springfield, MO MSA 62 0.91 5,965 87.3
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 228 3.34 6,193 90.63
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL MSA
228 3.34 6,421 93.97
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 300 4.39 6,721 98.36
Worcester, MA-CT PMSA 84 1.23 6,805 99.59
York, PA MSA 28 0.41 6,833 100
8 jurisdiction_aud Jurisdiction List of Jurisdictions sampled
(TBD)
9 x_city Name of City listing was
posted in.
List of Cities sampled
X_City Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
albuquerque 103 1.51 103 1.51
asheville 58 0.85 161 2.36
atlanta 300 4.39 461 6.75
austin 116 1.7 577 8.44
binghamton 47 0.69 624 9.13
buffalo 134 1.96 758 11.09
chicago 300 4.39 1,058 15.48
columbia 13 0.19 1,071 15.67
columbus 180 2.63 1,251 18.31
dallas 205 3 1,456 21.31
dayton 89 1.3 1,545 22.61
denver 228 3.34 1,773 25.95
detroit 228 3.34 2,001 29.28
fayetteville 18 0.26 2,019 29.55
fortmyers 86 1.26 2,105 30.81

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
30
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
9 x_city
(continued)
Name of City listing was
posted in.
List of Cities sampled
X_City Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
grandrapids 51 0.75 2,156 31.55
greenville 23 0.34 2,179 31.89
harrisburg 72 1.05 2,251 32.94
holland 6 0.09 2,257 33.03
houston 227 3.32 2,484 36.35
jacksonville 42 0.61 2,526 36.97
losangeles 300 4.39 2,826 41.36
louisville 89 1.3 2,915 42.66
mcallen 13 0.19 2,928 42.85
milwaukee 228 3.34 3,156 46.19
minneapolis 225 3.29 3,381 49.48
modesto 42 0.61 3,423 50.1
muskegon 20 0.29 3,443 50.39
nashville 153 2.24 3,596 52.63
newyork 300 4.39 3,896 57.02
ogden 5 0.07 3,901 57.09
oklahomacity 20 0.29 3,921 57.38
orangecounty 86 1.26 4,007 58.64
philadelphia 300 4.39 4,307 63.03
phoenix 228 3.34 4,535 66.37
pittsburgh 228 3.34 4,763 69.71
racine 5 0.07 4,768 69.78
raleigh 30 0.44 4,798 70.22
rockford 36 0.53 4,834 70.74
sacramento 228 3.34 5,062 74.08
saltlakecity 100 1.46 5,162 75.55
sanantonio 85 1.24 5,247 76.79
sanmarcos 16 0.23 5,263 77.02
savannah 56 0.82 5,319 77.84
scranton 5 0.07 5,324 77.92
seattle 227 3.32 5,551 81.24
sfbay 228 3.34 5,779 84.57
spokane 124 1.81 5,903 86.39
springfield 62 0.91 5,965 87.3
stlouis 228 3.34 6193 90.63
tampa 228 3.34 6,421 93.97
washingtondc 300 4.39 6,721 98.36
worcester 84 1.23 6,805 99.59
york 28 0.41 6,833 100
10 postid Posting ID Identification
number assigned
to every ad

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
31
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
11 monthad Month ad appeared 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
monthad Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
6 418 6.12 418 6.12
7 3,340 48.88 3,758 55
8 1,664 24.35 5,422 79.35
9 1,411 20.65 6,833 100
12 datead Date ad appeared List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st, 12
for 12th)
Dates of the Month
datead Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 172 2.52 172 2.52
2 32 0.47 204 2.99
4 149 2.18 353 5.17
5 299 4.38 652 9.54
6 311 4.55 963 14.09
7 245 3.59 1,208 17.68
8 381 5.58 1,589 23.25
9 205 3 1,794 26.25
10 334 4.89 2,128 31.14
11 315 4.61 2,443 35.75
12 355 5.2 2,798 40.95
13 285 4.17 3,083 45.12
14 251 3.67 3,334 48.79
15 217 3.18 3,551 51.97
16 104 1.52 3,655 53.49
17 144 2.11 3,799 55.6
18 330 4.83 4,129 60.43
19 179 2.62 4,308 63.05
20 318 4.65 4,626 67.7
21 268 3.92 4,894 71.62
22 230 3.37 5,124 74.99
23 177 2.59 5,301 77.58
24 197 2.88 5,498 80.46
25 238 3.48 5,736 83.95
26 246 3.6 5,982 87.55
27 95 1.39 6,077 88.94
28 73 1.07 6,150 90

29 333 4.87 6,483 94.88
30 291 4.26 6,774 99.14
31 59 0.86 6,833 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
32
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
13 dayad Weekday ad appeared 1 = Sunday
2 = Monday
3 = Tuesday
4 = Wednesday
5 = Thursday
6 = Friday
7 = Saturday
dayad Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 713 10.43 713 10.43
2 1,284 18.79 1,997 29.23
3 1,278 18.7 3,275 47.93
4 1,288 18.85 4,563 66.78
5 1,150 16.83 5,713 83.61
6 949 13.89 6,662 97.5
7 171 2.5 6,833 100
14 timead Time ad posted am/pm time
15 monthEDT Month ad appeared
(in EDT time)
1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
monthEDT Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
6 418 6.12 418 6.12
7 3,340 48.88 3,758 55
8 1,664 24.35 5,422 79.35
9 1,411 20.65 6,833 100
16 dateEDT Date ad appeared
(in EDT time)
List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
Dates of the Month
dateEDT Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 172 2.52 172 2.52
2 32 0.47 204 2.99
4 149 2.18 353 5.17
5 299 4.38 652 9.54
6 310 4.54 962 14.08
7 245 3.59 1,207 17.66
8 382 5.59 1,589 23.25
9 205 3 1,794 26.25
10 334 4.89 2,128 31.14
11 315 4.61 2,443 35.75
12 355 5.2 2,798 40.95
13 285 4.17 3,083 45.12
14 251 3.67 3,334 48.79
15 217 3.18 3,551 51.97
16 104 1.52 3,655 53.49
17 144 2.11 3,799 55.6
18 330 4.83 4,129 60.43
19 179 2.62 4,308 63.05
20 318 4.65 4,626 67.7
21 268 3.92 4,894 71.62
22 230 3.37 5,124 74.99
23 177 2.59 5,301 77.58
24 197 2.88 5,498 80.46
25 237 3.47 5,735 83.93

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
33
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
16 dateEDT
(continued)
Date ad appeared
(in EDT time)
List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
Dates of the Month
dateEDT Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
26 246 3.6 5,981 87.53
27 96 1.4 6,077 88.94
28 72 1.05 6,,149 89.99
29 331 4.84 6480 94.83
30 294 4.3 6,774 99.14
31 59 0.86 6,833 100
17 TimeEDT Time ad posted (in EDT
time)
am/pm time
18 listcat Apartment listing category
(for Boston and others
like Boston – may not be
applicable if no sites in our
sample have this)
1 = fee
2 = no fee
3 = by owner
4 = NA
listcat Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 86 1.26 86 1.26
2 20 0.29 106 1.55
3 194 2.84 300 4.39
4 6533 95.61 6833 100
19 company Name of real estate/
management company
in ad
1 = yes
2 = no
Company Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2962 43.35 2962 43.35
2 3871 56.65 6833 100
20 agent Agent name in ad 1 = yes
2 = no
agent Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1904 27.86 1904 27.86
2 4929 72.14 6833 100
21 ownoprov Name of owner or other
provider in ad
1 = yes
2 = no
ownoprov Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1148 16.8 1148 16.8
2 5685 83.2 6833 100
22 company1 Name of real estate/
management company/
apartment complex
List name – 9 = NA
23 company2 Name of real estate/
management company/
apartment complex
List name – 9 = NA
24 company3 Name of real estate/
management company/
apartment complex
List name – 9 = NA
25 agentname1 Name of agent (1) in
real estate/management
company
List name – 9 = NA
26 agentname2 Name of agent (2) in
real estate/management
company
List name – 9 = NA
27 agentname3 Name of agent (3) in
real estate/management
company
List name – 9 = NA
28 ownoprovname1 Name of owner or other
provider (1)
List name – 9 = NA

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
34
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
29 ownoprovname2 Name of owner or other
provider (2)
List name – 9 = NA
30 ownoprovname3 Name of owner or other
provider (3)
List name – 9 = NA
31 refnum Reference number Reference
number given by
housing provider
in ad
– 9 = NA
32 emailc Craigslist given email
address
Record email
address
33 email2 Email address in body
of text
Record email
address
– 9 = NA
34 email3 Other email address
given
Record email
address
– 9 = NA
35 email4 Other email address
given
Record email
address
– 9 = NA
36 phoneno1 Phone number (1) List number with
area code
(999)999–9999 = NA
37 phoneno2 Phone number (2) List number with
area code
(999)999–9999 = NA
38 phoneno3 Phone number (3) List number with
area code
(999)999–9999 = NA
39 phoneno4 Phone number (4) List number with
area code
(999)999–9999 = NA
40 unitst Street address of unit List address of
unit, including
house number
41 housing_apt_# Additional address
information such as
apartment number
– 9 = NA
42 crosssts Cross streets of unit List cross streets
at which unit is
approximately
located
43 city City/town List name of city/
town in which
unit is located
– 9 = NA
44 geo_oth Other Geographic
Information
– 9 = NA
45 state State List name of
state in which
unit is located
1 = AL
2 = AK
3 = AZ
4 = AR
5 = CA
6 = CO
7 = CT
8 = DC
state Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 3,530 51.66 3,530 51.66
3 141 2.06 3,671 53.72
4 2 0.03 3,673 53.75
5 339 4.96 4,012 58.72
6 204 2.99 4,216 61.7
7 1 0.01 4,217 61.72
8 76 1.11 4,293 62.83

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
35
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
45 state
(continued)
State List name of
state in which
unit is located
9 = DE
10 = FL
11 = GA
12 = HI
13 = ID
14 = IL
15 = IN
16 = IA
17 = KS
18 = KY
19 = LA
20 = ME
21 = MD
22 = MA
23 = MI
24 = MN
25 = MS
26 = MO
27 = MT
28 = NE
29 = NV
30 = NH
31 = NJ
32 = NM
33 = NY
34 = NC
35 = ND
36 = OH
37 = OK
38 = OR
39 = PA
40 = RI
41 = SC
42 = SD
43 = TN
44 = TX
45 = UT
46 = VT
47 = VA
48 = WA
49 = WV
50 = WI
51 = WY
state Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
9 12 0.18 4,305 63
10 218 3.19 4,523 66.19
11 243 3.56 4,766 69.75
12 1 0.01 4,767 69.76
14 285 4.17 5,052 73.94
15 3 0.04 5,055 73.98
18 14 0.2 5,069 74.18
20 1 0.01 5,070 74.2
21 67 0.98 5,137 75.18
22 61 0.89 5,198 76.07
23 118 1.73 5,316 77.8
24 160 2.34 5,476 80.14
26 86 1.26 5,562 81.4
27 1 0.01 5,563 81.41
28 1 0.01 5,564 81.43
32 23 0.34 5,587 81.76
33 289 4.23 5,876 85.99
34 64 0.94 5,940 86.93
36 92 1.35 6,032 88.28
37 10 0.15 6,042 88.42
38 1 0.01 6,043 88.44
39 158 2.31 6,201 90.75
40 1 0.01 6,202 90.77
41 21 0.31 6,223 91.07
42 1 0.01 6,224 91.09
43 61 0.89 6,285 91.98
44 249 3.64 6,534 95.62
45 26 0.38 6,560 96
46 1 0.01 6,561 96.02
47 95 1.39 6,656 97.41
48 112 1.64 6,768 99.05
50 55 0.8 6,823 99.85
51 10 0.15 6,833 100
46 zipcode_aud Zip code List first 5 digits
of zip code in
which unit is
located
99999 = NA

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
36
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
47 zipcodesuff_aud Zip code optional suffix List last 4 digits
of zip code
in which unit
is located IF
PROVIDED
9999 = NA
48 jurisdictionsize_
aud
Size of Metropolitan Area
49 legislation_aud Same-Sex discrimination
protecting unit in listing?
50 unitdes Unit facility 1 = in large apartment building
(10 + units)
2 = in small apartment building
(4-9 units)
3 = in triplex (3 units)
4 = in duplex (2 units)
5 = apartment, but size of
building unknown
6 = single family, detached
house
7 = recreational vehicle
8 = high rise
9 = don’t know
unitdes Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 161 2.36 161 2.36
2 184 2.69 345 5.05
3 61 0.89 406 5.94
4 181 2.65 587 8.59
5 5,353 78.34 5,940 86.93
6 128 1.87 6,068 88.8
7 15 0.22 6,083 89.02
8 61 0.89 6,144 89.92
9 689 10.08 6,833 100
51 unitdes1 Additional unit info 1 = condominium
2 = townhouse
3 = in-law unit
4 = loft
5 = Basement
6 = Other (specify after ;)
7 = No additional information
8 = Studio/Efficiency
unitdes1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 438 6.41 438 6.41
2 62 0.91 500 7.32
3 11 0.16 511 7.48
4 137 2 648 9.48
5 65 0.95 713 10.43
6 293 4.29 1,006 14.72
7 5,727 83.81 6,733 98.54
8 100 1.46 6,833 100
52 unitdes1_oth Other Response for
unitdes1
– 9 = NA
53 seniorhsg Unit in senior housing
community
1 = yes
2 = no
seniorhsg Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 104 1.52 104 1.52
2 6,729 98.48 6,833 100
54 cats Whether cats allowed 1 = yes
2 = no
– 9 = NA
cats Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 1,641 24.02 1,641 24.02
1 4,009 58.67 5,650 82.69
2 1,183 17.31 6,833 100
55 dogs Whether dogs allowed 1 = yes
2 = no
– 9 = NA
dogs Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 2,292 33.54 2,292 33.54
1 3,117 45.62 5,409 79.16
2 1,424 20.84 6,833 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
37
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
56 rent Monthly rent Dollar amount of
monthly rent listed
in ad for given unit
– 9 = NA Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
rent
871.1152942 561.3193183
89 6,000
57 rentrangeUL Monthly Rent Upper Limit Upper limit of a
rent range
– 9 = NA Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
rentrangeUL
896.8296915 660.0781003
195 7747
58 bfee Broker fee 1 = broker fee required as
stated in ad
2 = broker fee NOT required
as stated in ad”
bfee Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 98 1.43 98 1.43
2 6,735 98.57 6,833 100
59 bfeeamt Broker fee amount record amount of
broker fee listed
– 9 = NA
60 appfeead Application fee in ad 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
appfeead Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 802 11.74 802 11.74
2 6,031 88.26 6,833 100
61 secdepositad Security deposit in ad 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
secdepositad Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2,625 38.42 2,625 38.42
2 4,208 61.58 6,833 100
62 secdepamtad Security deposit amount
in ad
Record security
deposit amount
– 9 = NA
63 credchk Credit check mentioned 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchk Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 651 9.53 651 9.53
2 6,182 90.47 6,833 100
64 credchkfee Credit Check Fee
Mentioned
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchkfee Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 232 35.64 232 35.64
2 419 64.36 651 100
Frequency Missing = 6,182
65 credchkfeeamt Credit Check Fee Amount record amount of
credit check fee
listed
– 9 = NA Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
credchkfeeamt
69.7095745 207.2339406
0 2,700
66 fee Other fee 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
fee Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 706 10.33 706 10.33
2 6,127 89.67 6,833 100
67 rentdiscount Rent discount offered in ad 1 = yes, offered
2 = no, NOT offered
rentdiscount Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1,140 16.68 1,140 16.68
2 5,693 83.32 6,833 100
68 lease Lease in ad 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
lease Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1,703 24.92 1,703 24.92
2 5,130 75.08 6,833 100
69 leaseterm Lease term record actual
lease term
(in months)
Accepts range,
(XX-XX), – 9 = NA

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
38
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
70 eqopp Equal Opportunity
statement present in ad
1 = yes
2 = no
eqopp Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1,118 16.36 1,118 16.36
2 5,715 83.64 6,833 100
71 eqoppsymb Equal Opportunity symbol
present in ad
1 = yes
2 = no
eqoppsymb Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1,184 17.33 1,184 17.33
2 5,649 82.67 6,833 100
72 protectclass1 Protected class restriction
in advertisement
record
discriminatory
ad language
– 9 = NA
73 protectclass2 Protected class restriction
in advertisement
record
discriminatory
ad language
– 9 = NA
74 protectclass3 Protected class restriction
in advertisement
record
discriminatory
ad language
– 9 = NA
75 imagesize Size of largest image (in
pixels)
size (in pixels)
of largest image
in listing
76 TesterOrient Sexual Orientation of
Sender of Email (i.e. Tester)
S = Straight
G = Gay
L = Lesbian
TesterOrient Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
G 3,424 25.05 3,424 25.05
L 3,409 24.95 6,833 50
S 6,833 50 13,666 100
77 SenderGender Gender of Sender M = Male
F = Female
SenderGender Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
F 6,818 49.89 6,818 49.89
M 6,848 50.11 13,666 100
78 Contact
TimeRecode
Recode of Contact Time
79 TesterOrder
Recode
Tester Order Recode 1 = first tester
2 = second tester
TesterOrderRecode Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 6,833 50 6,833 50
2 6,833 50 13,666 100
80 ID Original ID in Tester Table
Database
Number assigned
for the audit
81 TesterID testerID Tester ID of tester
who created the
entry in the tester
database
82 metro_test Metro (MSA) List of MSAs sampled
metro_test Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
Albuquerque, NM MSA 206 1.51 206 1.51
Asheville, NC MSA 116 0.85 322 2.36
Atlanta, GA MSA 600 4.39 922 6.75
Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 264 1.93 1,186 8.68
Binghamton, NY MSA 94 0.69 1,280 9.37

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
39
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
82 metro_test
(continued)
Metro (MSA) List of MSAs sampled
metro_test Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 268 1.96 1,548 11.33
Chicago, IL PMSA 600 4.39 2,148 15.72
Columbia, SC MSA 26 0.19 2,174 15.91
Columbus, OH MSA 360 2.63 2,534 18.54
Dallas, TX PMSA 410 3 2,944 21.54
Dayton-Springfield, OH MSA 178 1.3 3,122 22.85
Denver, CO PMSA 456 3.34 3,578 26.18
Detroit, MI PMSA 456 3.34 4,034 29.52
Fayetteville, NC MSA 36 0.26 4,070 29.78
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA 172 1.26 4,242 31.04
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland,
MI MSA
154 1.13 4,396 32.17
Greenville-Spartenburg-Anderson,
SC MSA
46 0.34 4,442 32.5
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
MSA
144 1.05 4,586 33.56
Houston, TX PMSA 454 3.32 5,040 36.88
Jacksonville, FL MSA 84 0.61 5,124 37.49
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
PMSA
600 4.39 5,724 41.88
Louisville, KY-IN MSA 178 1.3 5,902 43.19
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 26 0.19 5,928 43.38
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 456 3.34 6,384 46.71
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 450 3.29 6,834 50.01
Modesto, CA MSA 84 0.61 6,918 50.62
Nashville, TN MSA 306 2.24 7,224 52.86
New York, NY PMSA 600 4.39 7,824 57.25
Oklahoma City, OK MSA 40 0.29 7,864 57.54
Orange County, CA PMSA 172 1.26 8,036 58.8
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 600 4.39 8,636 63.19
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 456 3.34 9,092 66.53
Pittsburgh, PA MSA 456 3.34 9,548 69.87
Racine, WI PMSA 10 0.07 9,558 69.94
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
MSA
60 0.44 9,618 70.38
Rockford, IL MSA 72 0.53 9,690 70.91
Sacramento, CA PMSA 456 3.34 10,146 74.24
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA 210 1.54 10,356 75.78
San Antonio, TX MSA 170 1.24 10,526 77.02
San Francisco, CA PMSA 456 3.34 10,982 80.36
Savannah, GA MSA 112 0.82 11,094 81.18
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton,
PA MSA
10 0.07 11,104 81.25
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA 454 3.32 11,558 84.57
Spokane, WA MSA 248 1.81 11,806 86.39
Springfield, MO MSA 124 0.91 11,930 87.3

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
40
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
82 metro_test
(continued)
Metro (MSA) List of MSAs sampled
metro_test Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 456 3.34 12,386 90.63
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL MSA
456 3.34 12,842 93.97
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 600 4.39 13,442 98.36
Worcester, MA-CT PMSA 168 1.23 13,610 99.59
York, PA MSA 56 0.41 13,666 100
83 jurisdiction_test Jurisdiction List of jurisdictions sampled
(TBD)
84 testorder Order of test 1 = first tester
2 = second tester
testorder Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 6,833 50 6,833 50
2 6,833 50 13,666 100
85 emailername1 Name of tester 1st contact list name or
assign numeric
code to names
86 partnername1 Name of partner in email list name or
assign numeric
code to names
87 contactdate1 Date of 1st contact List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st, 12
for 12th)
Dates of the Month
Contactdate1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 749 5.48 749 5.48
2 457 3.34 1,206 8.82
3 272 1.99 1,478 10.82
4 90 0.66 1,568 11.47
5 229 1.68 1,797 13.15
6 449 3.29 2,246 16.43
7 533 3.9 2,779 20.34
8 516 3.78 3,295 24.11
9 473 3.46 3,768 27.57
10 215 1.57 3,983 29.15
11 628 4.6 4,611 33.74
12 769 5.63 5,380 39.37
13 730 5.34 6,110 44.71
14 515 3.77 6,625 48.48
15 708 5.18 7,333 53.66
16 474 3.47 7,807 57.13
17 223 1.63 8,030 58.76
18 410 3 8,440 61.76
19 445 3.26 8,885 65.02
20 453 3.31 9,338 68.33
21 641 4.69 9,979 73.02
22 390 2.85 10,369 75.87
23 541 3.96 10,910 79.83
24 393 2.88 11,303 82.71
25 442 3.23 11,745 85.94
26 496 3.63 12,241 89.57

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
41
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
87 contactdate1
(continued)
Date of 1st contact List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
Dates of the Month
Contactdate1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
27 314 2.3 12,555 91.87
28 169 1.24 12,724 93.11
29 487 3.56 13,211 96.67
30 383 2.8 13,594 99.47
31 72 0.53 13,666 100
88 contactday1 Weekday of 1st contact 1 = Sunday
2 = Monday
3 = Tuesday
4 = Wednesday
5 = Thursday
6 = Friday
7 = Saturday
Contactday1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1,175 8.6 1,175 8.6
2 1,334 9.76 2,509 18.36
3 1,364 9.98 3,873 28.34
4 1,982 14.5 5,855 42.84
5 2,625 19.21 8,480 62.05
6 2,869 20.99 11,349 83.05
7 2,317 16.95 13,666 100
89 contactmonth1 Month of 1st contact 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
Contactday1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
6 208 1.52 208 1.52
7 7,111 52.03 7,319 53.56
8 3,257 23.83 10,576 77.39
9 2,961 21.67 13,537 99.06
10 129 0.94 13,666 100
90 contacttime1 Time of 1st contact Put in standard
time
91 numresp Number of responses
(in 2-week window)
1–20
numresp Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 5,576 40.8 5,576 40.8
1 7,349 53.78 12,925 94.58
2 622 4.55 13,547 99.13
3 91 0.67 13,638 99.8
4 18 0.13 13,656 99.93
5 8 0.06 13,664 99.99
7 2 0.01 13,666 100
92 response1 First response 1 = yes, received a response
2 = out of office response
3 = undeliverable message
response
4 = automated response
5 = scam response
– 9 = NA
response1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 7,355 90.91 7,355 90.91
2 49 0.61 7,404 91.52
3 512 6.33 7,916 97.85
4 172 2.13 8,088 99.98
5 2 0.02 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
42
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
93 respdate1 Date of first response List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
respdate1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 345 4.26 345 4.26
2 247 3.05 592 7.32
3 171 2.11 763 9.43
4 59 0.73 822 10.16
5 163 2.01 985 12.18
6 254 3.14 1,239 15.32
7 344 4.25 1,583 19.57
8 306 3.78 1,889 23.35
9 195 2.41 2,084 25.76
10 114 1.41 2,198 27.17
11 358 4.43 2,556 31.59
12 427 5.28 2,983 36.87
13 424 5.24 3,407 42.11
14 292 3.61 3,699 45.72
15 481 5.95 4,180 51.67
16 332 4.1 4,512 55.77
17 134 1.66 4,646 57.43
18 268 3.31 4,914 60.74
19 264 3.26 5,178 64
20 265 3.28 5,443 67.28
21 343 4.24 5,786 71.52
22 283 3.5 6,069 75.02
23 288 3.56 6,357 78.58
24 176 2.18 6,533 80.75
25 293 3.62 6,826 84.38
26 365 4.51 7,191 88.89
27 232 2.87 7,423 91.76
28 117 1.45 7,540 93.2
29 337 4.17 7,877 97.37
30 173 2.14 8,050 99.51
31 40 0.49 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
94 respday1 Weekday of first response 1 = Sunday
2 = Monday
3 = Tuesday
4 = Wednesday
5 = Thursday
6 = Friday
7 = Saturday
respday1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 640 7.91 640 7.91
2 1,186 14.66 1,826 22.57
3 939 11.61 2,765 34.18
4 1,186 14.66 3,951 48.84
5 1,489 18.41 5,440 67.24
6 1,608 19.88 7,048 87.12
7 1,042 12.88 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
43
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
95 respmonth1 Month of first response 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA
respmonth1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.01 1 0.01
5 1 0.01 2 0.02
6 57 0.7 59 0.73
7 4,122 50.95 4,181 51.68
8 1,912 23.63 6,093 75.32
9 1,893 23.4 7,986 98.71
10 103 1.27 8,089 99.99
12 1 0.01 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
96 resptime1 Time of first response Put in Standard
Time, XX:XX AM/
PM
– 9 = NA resptime1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
11:02:24
PM
18:57 12:00:00 AM 12:00:00 AM
97 respnmeinemail1 Housing provider’s name
in the “From” line
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA
98 respprovoth-
name1
Housing provider’s name
in body of email
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA
99 response2 Second response 1 = yes, received a second
response
2 = automated response
3 = scam response
– 9 = NA
response2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 2 0.27 2 0.27
1 718 96.9 720 97.17
2 20 2.7 740 99.87
3 1 0.13 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
100 respdate2 Date of second response List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st, 12
for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
respdate2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 31 4.18 31 4.18
2 13 1.75 44 5.94
3 18 2.43 62 8.37
4 18 2.43 80 10.8
5 11 1.48 91 12.28
6 21 2.83 112 15.11
7 21 2.83 133 17.95
8 16 2.16 149 20.11
9 20 2.7 169 22.81
10 15 2.02 184 24.83
11 17 2.29 201 27.13
12 25 3.37 226 30.5
13 33 4.45 259 34.95
14 39 5.26 298 40.22
15 37 4.99 335 45.21
16 38 5.13 373 50.34
17 15 2.02 388 52.36
18 21 2.83 409 55.2
19 18 2.43 427 57.62

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
44
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
100 respdate2
(continued)
Date of second response List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
respdate2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
20 32 4.32 459 61.94
21 33 4.45 492 66.4
22 26 3.51 518 69.91
23 36 4.86 554 74.76
24 25 3.37 579 78.14
25 26 3.51 605 81.65
26 24 3.24 629 84.89
27 30 4.05 659 88.93
28 33 4.45 692 93.39
29 21 2.83 713 96.22
30 22 2.97 735 99.19
31 6 0.81 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
101 respday2 Weekday of second
response
1 = Sunday
2 = Monday
3 = Tuesday
4 = Wednesday
5 = Thursday
6 = Friday
7 = Saturday
respday2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 86 11.61 86 11.61
2 111 14.98 197 26.59
3 82 11.07 279 37.65
4 121 16.33 400 53.98
5 110 14.84 510 68.83
6 127 17.14 637 85.96
7 104 14.04 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
102 respmonth2 Month of second response 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA
respmonth2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
6 1 0.13 1 0.13
7 359 48.45 360 48.58
8 162 21.86 522 70.45
9 187 25.24 709 95.68
10 32 4.32 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
103 resptime2 Time of second response Put in Standard
Time, XX:XX AM/
PM
– 9 = NA resptime2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
10:19:12
AM
9:07 12:00:00 AM 12:00:00 AM
104 respnmeinemail2 Housing provider’s name
in the “From” line
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA
105 respprovoth-
name2
Housing provider’s name
in body of email
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
45
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
106 response3 Third response 1 = yes, received a second
response
2 = automated response
3 = scam response
– 9 = NA
response3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 108 90.76 108 90.76
2 11 9.24 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
107 respdate3 Date of third response List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1-31, – 9=NA
respdate3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
3 6 5.04 7 5.88
4 2 1.68 9 7.56
5 5 4.2 14 11.76
6 1 0.84 15 12.61
7 2 1.68 17 14.29
8 4 3.36 21 17.65
9 2 1.68 23 19.33
10 1 0.84 24 20.17
11 2 1.68 26 21.85
12 1 0.84 27 22.69
13 4 3.36 31 26.05
14 2 1.68 33 27.73
15 5 4.2 38 31.93
16 6 5.04 44 36.97
17 2 1.68 46 38.66
18 7 5.88 53 44.54
19 4 3.36 57 47.9
20 10 8.4 67 56.3
21 5 4.2 72 60.5
22 2 1.68 74 62.18
23 4 3.36 78 65.55
24 6 5.04 84 70.59
25 5 4.2 89 74.79
26 7 5.88 96 80.67
27 3 2.52 99 83.19
28 7 5.88 106 89.08
29 4 3.36 110 92.44
30 3 2.52 113 94.96
31 6 5.04 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
108 respday3 Weekday of third response 1 = Sunday
2 = Monday
3 = Tuesday
4 = Wednesday
5 = Thursday
6 = Friday
7 = Saturday
respday3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 9 7.56 9 7.56
2 23 19.33 32 26.89
3 15 12.61 47 39.5
4 22 18.49 69 57.98
5 18 15.13 87 73.11
6 15 12.61 102 85.71
7 17 14.29 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
46
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
109 respmonth3 Month of third response 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA
respmonth3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
7 51 42.86 51 42.86
8 30 25.21 81 68.07
9 28 23.53 109 91.6
10 10 8.4 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
110 resptime3 Time of third response Put in Standard
Time, XX:XX
AM/PM
– 9 = NA resptime3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
4:19:12 PM 4:33 12:00:00 AM 12:00:00 AM
111 respnmeinemail3 Housing provider’s name in
the “From” line
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA
112 respemail3 Housing provider’s email
address in the “From” line
Record housing
provider’s email
address
– 9 = NA
113 respprovoth-
name3
Housing provider’s name in
body of email
Record housing
provider’s name
– 9 = NA
114 available1 Availability 1 = unit available
2 = unit not available
3 = housing provider not sure
about availability
– 9 = NA
available1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 1,113 13.76 1,113 13.76
1 6,123 75.69 7,236 89.44
2 706 8.73 7,942 98.17
3 148 1.83 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
115 availdate1 Date of availability List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
availdate1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 5816 94.99 5816 94.99
1 157 2.56 5973 97.55
2 14 0.23 5987 97.78
3 3 0.05 5990 97.83
4 5 0.08 5995 97.91
5 13 0.21 6008 98.12
6 3 0.05 6011 98.17
7 5 0.08 6016 98.25
8 12 0.2 6028 98.45
9 3 0.05 6031 98.5
10 19 0.31 6050 98.81
12 3 0.05 6053 98.86
13 1 0.02 6054 98.87
14 1 0.02 6055 98.89
15 20 0.33 6075 99.22
17 4 0.07 6079 99.28

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
47
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
115 availdate1
(continued)
Date of availability List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
availdate1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
19 5 0.08 6084 99.36
20 4 0.07 6088 99.43
21 3 0.05 6091 99.48
22 4 0.07 6095 99.54
23 6 0.1 6101 99.64
24 1 0.02 6102 99.66
25 4 0.07 6106 99.72
26 4 0.07 6110 99.79
28 1 0.02 6111 99.8
29 4 0.07 6115 99.87
30 2 0.03 6117 99.9
31 6 0.1 6123 100
Frequency Missing = 7,543
116 availASAP1 avalabile as soon as
possible?
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
availASAP1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 162 2.65 162 2.65
2 5,961 97.35 6,123 100
Frequency Missing = 7,543
117 availmonth1 Month of availability 1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA
availmonth1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 5,688 92.9 5,688 92.9
1 4 0.07 5,692 92.96
2 13 0.21 5,705 93.17
7 40 0.65 5,745 93.83
8 120 1.96 5,865 95.79
9 146 2.38 6,011 98.17
10 95 1.55 6,106 99.72
11 16 0.26 6,122 99.98
12 1 0.02 6,123 100
Frequency Missing = 7,543
118 availsoon1 Another unit available soon 1 = provider indicated another
unit will become available
soon
2 = provider did NOT indicate
another unit will become
available soon
availsoon1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 284 3.52 284 3.52
2 7,794 96.48 8,078 100
Frequency Missing = 5,588
119 inspection1 Inspection 1 = invited to inspect
2 = NOT invited to inspect
Inspection1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5,811 71.83 5,811 71.83
2 2,279 28.17 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
48
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
120 inspecttime1 Timeframe given to inspect
unit
1 = anytime
2 = specify time provided
(after ;)
3 = no timeframe given
Inspecttime1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 165 2.84 165 2.84
2 3,397 58.46 3,562 61.3
3 2,249 38.7 5,811 100
Frequency Missing = 7,855
121 contprov1 Contact provider 1 = advised to contact
housing provider
2 = NOT advised to contact
housing provider
contprov1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4,333 53.56 4,333 53.56
2 3,757 46.44 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
122 rphone1 Phone number given
in response
1 = yes
2 = no
rphone1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5,517 68.2 5,517 68.2
2 2,573 31.8 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
123 rphonenum1 record phone number (999)999–9999 = NA
124 resprent1 Monthly rent in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
resprent1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 575 7.11 575 7.11
2 7,515 92.89 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
125 rentamt1r1 Rent amount in response – 9 = NA rentamt1r1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
863.22471 499.9101911 358 3,800
126 rentamt2r1 2nd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt2r1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
959.1266376 551.8941837 400 4,000
127 rentamt3r1 3rd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt3r1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
817.3478261 362.6475385 450 1,547
128 respbfee1 Broker fee in e-mail 1 = broker fee mentioned by
provider
2 = broker fee NOT mentioned
by provider
respbfee1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 12 0.15 12 0.15
2 807,8 99.85 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
129 respbfeeamt1 Amount of broker fee – 9 = NA respbfeeamt1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
130 appfee1 Application fee in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
appfee1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 197 2.44 197 2.44
2 7,893 97.56 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
131 appfeeamt1 Application fee amount – 9 = NA appfeeamt1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
37.7289017 52.4416151 0 545
132 secdeposit1 Security deposit
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
secdeposit1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 164 2.03 164 2.03
2 7,926 97.97 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
133 secdepamt1 Security deposit amount – 9 = NA secdepamt1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
310.4032258 381.8625177 0 2,800

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
49
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
134 credchk1 Credit check mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchk1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 125 1.55 125 1.55
2 7,965 98.45 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
135 credchkfee1 Credit check fee mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchkfee1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 10 8 10 8
2 115 92 125 100
Frequency Missing = 13,541
136 credchkfeeamt1 credit check fee amount
in response
– 9 = NA credchkfeeamt1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
33.5 15.6436 10 65
137 respfee1 Other fee in e-mail 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
respfee1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 112 1.38 112 1.38
2 7,978 98.62 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
138 respfeeamt1 Amount of other fee – 9 = NA respfeeamt1 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
154.2989691 120.7887416 0 500
139 rentdiscount1 Rent discount offered
in response
1 = yes, offered
2 = no, NOT offered
rentdiscount1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 179 2.21 179 2.21
2 7,911 97.79 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
140 lease1 Lease in response 1 = yes, a lease
2 = no, NO lease
lease1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 139 1.72 139 1.72
2 7,951 98.28 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
141 leaseterm1 Lease term Accepts range, (XX–XX),
– 9 = NA
142 areaamen1 Area amenities mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
areaamen1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 209 2.58 209 2.58
2 7,881 97.42 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
143 areaamentyp1a Amenities – schools 1 = yes, schools/good schools
mentioned
2 = no, schools/good schools
NOT mentioned
areaamentyp1a Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 31 14.83 31 14.83
2 178 85.17 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13457
144 areaamentyp1b Amenities – transportation 1 = yes, transportation
mentioned
2 = no, transportation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp1b Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 97 46.41 97 46.41
2 112 53.59 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13,457

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
50
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
145 areaamentyp1c Amenities – shopping 1 = yes, shopping mentioned
2 = no, shopping NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp1c Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 162 77.51 162 77.51
2 47 22.49 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13,457
146 areaamentyp1d Amenities – recreation
(e.g. restaurants, parks,
museums, etc.)
1 = yes, recreation mentioned
2 = no, recreation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp1d Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 149 71.29 149 71.29
2 60 28.71 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13,457
147 areaamentyp1e Amenities – jobs 1 = yes, jobs mentioned
2 = no, jobs NOT mentioned
areaamentyp1e Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 15 7.18 15 7.18
2 194 92.82 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13,457
148 areaamentyp1f Amenities – other 1 = yes, other mentioned
2 = no, other NOT mentioned
areaamentyp1f Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 117 55.98 117 55.98
2 92 44.02 209 100
Frequency Missing = 13,457
149 buildamen1 Building amenities
mentioned in response
(e.g., laundry facilities,
WIFI, garage)
1=yes, mentioned
2=no, NOT mentioned
buildamen1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 432 5.34 432 5.34
2 7,658 94.66 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
150 raddress1 Address of unit given in
response
1 = yes
2 = no
raddress1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 735 9.09 735 9.09
2 7,355 90.91 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
151 attachment1 E-mail attachment present 1 = yes
2 = no
attachment1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 254 3.14 254 3.14
2 7,836 96.86 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
152 forward1 Offer to forward email or
email forwarded to others
besides contact person
1 = yes
2 = no
forward1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 71 0.88 71 0.88
2 8,019 99.12 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
153 resp1quest1 Employment status 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 68 0.84 68 0.84
2 8,022 99.16 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
154 resp1quest2 Relationship status
(e.g., married, divorced,
partnered)
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 0.02 2 0.02
2 8,088 99.98 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
51
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
155 resp1quest3 Presence of children 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.01 1 0.01
2 8,089 99.99 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
156 resp1quest4 Reason for moving 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest4 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 6 0.07 6 0.07
2 8,084 99.93 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
157 resp1quest5 Current residence 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest5 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 23 0.28 23 0.28
2 8,067 99.72 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
158 resp1quest6 Credit check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest6 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 79 0.98 79 0.98
2 8,011 99.02 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
159 resp1quest7 Background check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest7 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 54 0.67 54 0.67
2 8,036 99.33 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
160 resp1quest8 Whether application
required before inspection
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest8 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 60 0.74 60 0.74
2 8,030 99.26 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
161 resp1quest9 Social Security number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest9 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 8 0.1 8 0.1
2 8,082 99.9 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
162 resp1quest10 Income level 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest10 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 72 0.89 72 0.89
2 8,018 99.11 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
163 resp1quest11 Who is the unit for 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest11 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 54 0.67 54 0.67
2 8,036 99.33 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
164 resp1quest12 When are you looking
to move
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest12 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 477 5.9 477 5.9
2 7,613 94.1 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
52
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
165 resp1quest13 Do you have any pets 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest13 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 162 2 162 2
2 7,928 98 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
166 resp1quest14 Are you still interested 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp1quest14 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 53 0.66 53 0.66
2 8,037 99.34 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
167 legalstatus1 Whether legal or illegal
immigrant
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
legalstatus1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 3 0.04 3 0.04
2 8,087 99.96 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
168 cphone1 Tester’s phone number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
cphone1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 291 3.6 291 3.6
2 7,799 96.4 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
169 sexorient1 Tester’s sexual orientation 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
sexorient1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 0.05 4 0.05
2 8,086 99.95 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5,576
170 addunits1 Additional units 1 = informed of additional
units
2 = NOT informed of
additional units
– 9 = NA
addunits1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 895 11.06 895 11.06
1 999 12.35 1,894 23.41
2 6,196 76.59 8,090 100
Frequency Missing = 5576
171 addunit address1 Additional unit address list address
information
including house
number and
street address
– 9 = NA
172 addunitcity1 Additional unit city/town list city/town – 9 = NA
173 addunitst1 Additional unit state list state 1 = AL
2 = AK
3 = AZ
4 = AR
5 = CA
6 = CO
7 = CT
8 = DC
9 = DE
10 = FL
11 = GA
addunits1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 885 88.59 885 88.59
2 1 0.1 886 88.69
3 13 1.3 899 89.99
5 12 1.2 911 91.19
6 12 1.2 923 92.39
9 1 0.1 924 92.49
10 9 0.9 933 93.39
11 9 0.9 942 94.29
21 1 0.1 943 94.39

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
53
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
173 addunitst1
(continued)
Additional unit state list state 12 = HI
13 = ID
addunits1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
14 = IL 23 5 0.5 948 94.89
15 = IN 24 2 0.2 950 95.1
16 = IA 26 3 0.3 953 95.4
17 = KS 32 2 0.2 955 95.6
18 = KY 33 11 1.1 966 96.7
19 = LA 34 3 0.3 969 97
20 = ME 35 1 0.1 970 97.1
21 = MD 37 2 0.2 972 97.3
22 = MA 41 3 0.3 975 97.6
23 = MI 44 15 1.5 990 99.1
24 = MN 45 2 0.2 992 99.3
25 = MS 48 7 0.7 999 100
26 = MO
27 = MT
28 = NE
29 = NV
30 = NH
31 = NJ
32 = NM
33 = NY
34 = NC
35 = ND
36 = OH
37 = OK
38 = OR
39 = PA
40 = RI
41 = SC
42 = SD
43 = TN
44 = TX
45 = UT
46 = VT
47 = VA
48 = WA
49 = WV
50 = WI
51 = WY
&ndash; 9 = NA Frequency Missing = 12,667
174 addunitzip1 Additional unit Zip code List first 5 digits
of zip code in
which unit is
located

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
54
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
175 addunitzipsuff1 Additional unit Zip code
optional suffix
List last 4 digits
of zip code
in which unit
is located IF
PROVIDED
176 available2 Availability
available2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 189 25.51 189 25.51
1 513 69.23 702 94.74
2 36 4.86 738 99.6
3 3 0.4 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
177 availdate2 Date of availability List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
avaidate2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 492 95.91 492 95.91
1 9 1.75 501 97.66
2 2 0.39 503 98.05
7 2 0.39 505 98.44
19 1 0.19 506 98.64
20 3 0.58 509 99.22
21 3 0.58 512 99.81
23 1 0.19 513 100
Frequency Missing = 13,153
178 availASAP2 avalabile as soon as
possible?
avaiASAP2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 12 2.34 12 2.34
2 501 97.66 513 100
Frequency Missing = 13,153
179 availmonth2 Month of availability 1 = January
2 = February
avaimonth2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
3 = March – 9 483 94.15 483 94.15
4 = April 2 2 0.39 485 94.54
5 = May 7 8 1.56 493 96.1
6 = June 8 5 0.97 498 97.08
7 = July 9 10 1.95 508 99.03
8 = August 10 4 0.78 512 99.81
9 = September 11 1 0.19 513 100
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA Frequency Missing = 13,153
180 availsoon2 Another unit available soon 1 = provider indicated another
unit will become available
soon
2 = provider did NOT indicate
another unit will become
available soon
avaisoon2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 17 2.29 17 2.29
2 724 97.71 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
55
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
181 inspection2 Inspection 1 = invited to inspect
2 = NOT invited to inspect
inspection2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 508 68.56 508 68.56
2 233 31.44 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
182 inspecttime2 Timeframe given to
inspect unit
1 = anytime
2 = specify time provided
(after ;)
3 = no timeframe given
inspecttime2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 16 3.15 16 3.15
2 281 55.31 297 58.46
3 211 41.54 508 100
Frequency Missing = 13,158
183 contprov2 Contact provider 1 = advised to contact
housing provider
2 = NOT advised to contact
housing provider
contprov2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 363 48.99 363 48.99
2 378 51.01 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
184 rphone2 Phone number given in
response
1 = yes
2 = no
rphone2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 487 65.72 487 65.72
2 254 34.28 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
185 rphonenum2 record phone number (999)999–9999 = NA
186 resprent2 Monthly rent in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
resprent2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 46 6.21 46 6.21
2 695 93.79 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
187 rentamt1r2 Rent amount in response – 9 = NA rentamt1r2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
1088.83 916.5512001 389 5,353
188 rentamt2r2 2nd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt2r2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
858.2727273 467.6620769 434 2,135
189 rentamt3r2 3rd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt3r2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
837 265.8721497 649 1,025
190 respbfee2 Broker fee in e-mail 1 = broker fee mentioned by
provider
2 = broker fee NOT mentioned
by provider
resprent2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 0.27 2 0.27
2 739 99.73 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
191 respbfeeamt2 Amount of broker fee – 9 = NA respbfeeamt2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
192 appfee2 Application fee in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
resprent2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 13 1.75 13 1.75
2 728 98.25 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
193 appfeeamt2 Application fee amount – 9 = NA appfeeamt2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
23.8888889 25.5902542 0 75

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
56
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
194 secdeposit2 Security deposit in
response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
secdeposit2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 8 1.08 8 1.08
2 733 98.92 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12925
195 secdepamt2 Security deposit amount – 9 = NA secdepamt2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
248.8333333 233.5664074 87.5 550
196 credchk2 Credit check mentioned in
response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchk2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 3 0.4 3 0.4
2 738 99.6 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
197 credchkfee2 Credit check fee mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchkfee2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 3 100 3 100
Frequency Missing = 13,663
198 credchkfeeamt2 credit check fee amount in
response
– 9 = NA credchkfeeamt2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
199 respfee2 Other fee in e-mail 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
respfee2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5 0.67 5 0.67
2 736 99.33 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
200 respfeeamt2 Amount of other fee – 9 = NA respfeeamt2 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
190 149.3318452 20 300
201 rentdiscount2 Rent discount offered in
response
1 = yes, offered
2 = no, NOT offered
rentdiscount2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 22 2.97 22 2.97
2 719 97.03 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
202 rentdisdesc2 Description of rent discount – 9 = NA
203 lease2 Lease in response 1 = yes, a lease
2 = no, NO lease
lease2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 11 1.48 11 1.48
2 730 98.52 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
204 leaseterm2 Lease term Accepts range, (XX–XX),
– 9 = NA
205 areaamen2 Area amenities mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
areaamen2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 22 2.97 22 2.97
2 719 97.03 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
206 areaamentyp2a Amenities – schools 1 = yes, schools/good schools
mentioned
2 = no, schools/good schools
NOT mentioned
areaamentyp2a Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 18.18 4 18.18
2 18 81.82 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
57
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
207 areaamentyp2b Amenities – transportation 1 = yes, transportation
mentioned
2 = no, transportation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp2b Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 13 59.09 13 59.09
2 9 40.91 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644
208 areaamentyp2c Amenities – shopping 1 = yes, shopping mentioned
2 = no, shopping NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp2c Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 12 54.55 12 54.55
2 10 45.45 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644
209 areaamentyp2d “Amenities – recreation
(e.g. restaurants, parks,
museums, etc.)”
1 = yes, recreation mentioned
2 = no, recreation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp2d Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 14 63.64 14 63.64
2 8 36.36 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644
210 areaamentyp2e Amenities – jobs 1 = yes, jobs mentioned
2 = no, jobs NOT mentioned
areaamentyp2e Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 9.09 2 9.09
2 20 90.91 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644
211 areaamentyp2f Amenities – other 1 = yes, other mentioned
2 = no, other NOT mentioned
areaamentyp2f Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 10 45.45 10 45.45
2 12 54.55 22 100
Frequency Missing = 13,644
212 buildamen2 Building amenities
mentioned in response
(e.g., laundry facilities,
WIFI, garage)
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
buildamen2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 34 4.59 34 4.59
2 707 95.41 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
213 raddress2 Address of unit given
in response
1 = yes
2 = no
raddress2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 86 11.61 86 11.61
2 655 88.39 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
214 attachment2 E-mail attachment present 1 = yes
2 = no
attachment2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 33 4.45 33 4.45
2 708 95.55 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
215 forward2 Offer to forward email or
email forwarded to others
besides contact person
1 = yes
2 = no
forward2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 10 1.35 10 1.35
2 731 98.65 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
216 resp2quest1 Employment status 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
58
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
217 resp2quest2 Relationship status
(e.g., married, divorced,
partnered)
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
218 resp2quest3 Presence of children 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
219 resp2quest4 Reason for moving 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest4 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
220 resp2quest5 Current residence 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest5 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12925
221 resp2quest6 Credit check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest6 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
222 resp2quest7 Background check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest7 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
223 resp2quest8 Whether application
required before inspection
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest8 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 3 0.4 3 0.4
2 738 99.6 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
224 resp2quest9 Social Security number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest9 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
225 resp2quest10 Income level 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest10 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
226 resp2quest11 Who is the unit for 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest11 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 0.27 2 0.27
2 739 99.73 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
227 resp2quest12 When are you looking to
move
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest12 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 16 2.16 16 2.16
2 725 97.84 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
59
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
228 resp2quest13 Do you have any pets 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest13 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 10 1.35 10 1.35
2 731 98.65 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
229 resp2quest14 Are you still interested 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp2quest14 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 137 18.49 137 18.49
2 604 81.51 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
230 legalstatus2 Whether legal or illegal
immigrant
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
legalstatus2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 741 100 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
231 cphone2 Tester’s phone number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
cphone2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 25 3.37 25 3.37
2 716 96.63 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
232 sexorient2 Tester’s sexual orientation 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
sexorient2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.13 1 0.13
2 740 99.87 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
233 addunits2 Additional units 1 = informed of additional
units
2 = NOT informed of
additional units
– 9 = NA
addunits2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 91 12.28 91 12.28
1 58 7.83 149 20.11
2 592 79.89 741 100
Frequency Missing = 12,925
234 addunitaddress2 Additional unit address list address
information
including house
number and
street address
– 9 = NA
235 addunitcity2 Additional unit city/town list city/town – 9 = NA
236 addunitst2 Additional unit state list state 1 = AL
2 = AK
addunitst2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
3 = AZ – 9 48 82.76 48 82.76
4 = AR 3 2 3.45 50 86.21
5 = CA 33 4 6.9 54 93.1
6 = CO 44 4 6.9 58 100
7 = CT
8 = DC
9 = DE
10 = FL
11 = GA
12 = HI

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
60
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
236 addunitst2
(continued)
Additional unit state list state 13 = ID
14 = IL
addunitst2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
15 = IN
16 = IA
17 = KS
18 = KY
19 = LA
20 = ME
21 = MD
22 = MA
23 = MI
24 = MN
25 = MS
26 = MO
27 = MT
28 = NE
29 = NV
30 = NH
31 = NJ
32 = NM
33 = NY
34 = NC
35 = ND
36 = OH
37 = OK
38 = OR
39 = PA
40 = RI
41 = SC
42 = SD
43 = TN
44 = TX
45 = UT
46 = VT
47 = VA
48 = WA
49 = WV
50 = WI
51 = WY
– 9 = NA Frequency Missing = 13,608
237 addunitzip2 Additional unit Zip code List first 5 digits
of zip code in
which unit is
located
99999 = NA
238 addunitzipsuff2 Additional unit Zip code
optional suffix
List last 4 digits
of zip code
in which unit
is located IF
PROVIDED
9999 = NA

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
61
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
239 available3 Availability 1 = unit available
2 = unit not available
3 = housing provider not sure
about availability
– 9 = NA
available3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 46 38.66 46 38.66
1 66 55.46 112 94.12
2 7 5.88 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13547
240 availdate3 Date of availability List actual date
(e.g., 1 for 1st,
12 for 12th)
1–31, – 9 = NA
availdate3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 65 98.48 65 98.48
21 1 1.52 66 100
Frequency Missing = 13,600
241 availASAP3 avalabile as soon as
possible?
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
availASAP3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5 7.58 5 7.58
2 61 92.42 66 100
Frequency Missing = 13,600
242 availmonth3 Month of availability 1 = January
2 = February
availmonth3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
3 = March – 9 65 98.48 65 98.48
4 = April 10 1 1.52 66 100
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
– 9 = NA Frequency Missing = 13,600
243 availsoon3 Another unit available soon 1 = provider indicated another
unit will become available
soon
2 = provider did NOT indicate
another unit will become
available soon
availsoon3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 3 2.52 3 2.52
2 116 97.48 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
244 inspection3 Inspection 1 = invited to inspect
2 = NOT invited to inspect
inspection3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 59 49.58 59 49.58
2 60 50.42 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
245 inspecttime3 Timeframe given to
inspect unit
1 = anytime
2 = specify time provided
(after ;)
3 = no timeframe given
inspecttime3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 34 57.63 34 57.63
3 25 42.37 59 100
Frequency Missing = 13,607

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
62
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
246 contprov3 Contact provider 1 = advised to contact
housing provider
2 = NOT advised to contact
housing provider
contprov3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 57 47.9 57 47.9
2 62 52.1 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
247 rphone3 Phone number given in
response
1 = yes
2 = no
rphone3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 75 63.03 75 63.03
2 44 36.97 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13547
248 rphonenum3 record phone number (999)999–9999 = NA
249 resprent3 Monthly rent in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
resprent3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 9 7.56 9 7.56
2 110 92.44 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
250 rentamt1r3 Rent amount in response – 9 = NA rentamt1r3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
1076.78 424.3079005 720 1895
251 rentamt2r3 2nd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt2r3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
2344 0 2344 2344
252 rentamt3r3 3rd Rent amount in
response
– 9 = NA rentamt3r3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
253 respbfee3 Broker fee in e-mail 1 = broker fee mentioned by
provider
2 = broker fee NOT mentioned
by provider
respbfee3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
254 respbfeeamt3 Amount of broker fee – 9 = NA respbfeeamt3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
255 appfee3 Application fee in response 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
appfee3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5 4.2 5 4.2
2 114 95.8 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
256 appfeeamt3 Application fee amount – 9 = NA appfeeamt3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
28.3333333 40.7226391 0 75
257 secdeposit3 Security deposit in
response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
appfee3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 3.36 4 3.36
2 115 96.64 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
258 secdepamt3 Security deposit amount – 9 = NA secdepamt3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
237.25 411.1572084 0 850
259 credchk3 Credit check mentioned in
response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchk3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 1.68 2 1.68
2 117 98.32 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
63
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
260 credchkfee3 Credit check fee mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
credchk3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 2 100 2 100
Frequency Missing = 13,664
261 credchkfeeamt3 credit check fee amount in
response
– 9 = NA credchkfeeamt3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
. . . .
262 respfee3 Other fee in e-mail 1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
respfee3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 2 1.68 2 1.68
2 117 98.32 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
263 respfeeamt3 Amount of other fee – 9 = NA respfeeamt3 Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum
99 0 99 99
264 rentdiscount3 Rent discount offered in
response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
rentdiscount3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
265 rentdisdesc3 Description of rent discount – 9 = NA
266 lease3 Lease in response 1 = yes, a lease
2 = no, NO lease
lease3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 3 2.52 3 2.52
2 116 97.48 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
267 leaseterm3 Lease term Accepts range, (XX–XX),
– 9 = NA
268 areaamen3 Area amenities mentioned
in response
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
areaamen3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 5 4.2 5 4.2
2 114 95.8 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
269 areaamentyp3a Amenities – schools 1 = yes, schools/good schools
mentioned
2 = no, schools/good schools
NOT mentioned
areaamentyp3a Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 20 1 20
2 4 80 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661
270 areaamentyp3b Amenities – transportation 1 = yes, transportation
mentioned
2 = no, transportation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp3b Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 80 4 80
2 1 20 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661
271 areaamentyp3c Amenities – shopping 1 = yes, shopping mentioned
2 = no, shopping
NOT mentioned
areaamentyp3c Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 80 4 80
2 1 20 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
64
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
272 areaamentyp3d Amenities – recreation
(e.g. restaurants, parks,
museums, etc.)
1 = yes, recreation mentioned
2 = no, recreation NOT
mentioned
areaamentyp3d Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 4 80 4 80
2 1 20 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661
273 areaamentyp3e Amenities – jobs 1 = yes, jobs mentioned
2 = no, jobs NOT mentioned
areaamentyp3e Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 5 100 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661
274 areaamentyp3f Amenities – other 1 = yes, other mentioned
2 = no, other NOT mentioned
areaamentyp3f Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 5 100 5 100
Frequency Missing = 13,661
275 buildamen3 Building amenities
mentioned in response
(e.g., laundry facilities,
WIFI, garage)
1 = yes, mentioned
2 = no, NOT mentioned
buildamen3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 13 10.92 13 10.92
2 106 89.08 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
276 raddress3 Address of unit given in
response
1 = yes
2 = no
raddress3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 18 15.13 18 15.13
2 101 84.87 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
277 attachment3 E-mail attachment present 1 = yes
2 = no
attachment3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 10 8.4 10 8.4
2 109 91.6 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
278 forward3 Offer to forward email or
email forwarded to others
besides contact person
1 = yes
2 = no
forward3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
279 resp3quest1 Employment status 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest1 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
280 resp3quest2 Relationship status 
(e.g., married, divorced,
partnered)
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest2 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
281 resp3quest3 Presence of children 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
282 resp3quest4 Reason for moving 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest4 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
65
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
283 resp3quest5 Current residence 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest5 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
284 resp3quest6 Credit check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest6 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
285 resp3quest7 Background check 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest7 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
286 resp3quest8 Whether application re-
quired before inspection
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest8 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
287 resp3quest9 Social Security number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest9 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
288 resp3quest10 Income level 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest10 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
289 resp3quest11 Who is the unit for 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest11 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
290 resp3quest12 When are you looking
to move
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest112 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
291 resp3quest13 Do you have any pets 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest113 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
292 resp3quest14 Are you still interested 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
resp3quest114 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 35 29.41 35 29.41
2 84 70.59 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
293 legalstatus3 Whether legal or illegal
immigrant
1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
legalstatus3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
66
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
294 cphone3 Tester’s phone number 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
cphone3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 1 0.84 1 0.84
2 118 99.16 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
295 sexorient3 Tester’s sexual orientation 1 = yes, asked
2 = no, NOT asked
sexorient3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
2 119 100 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13,547
296 addunits3 Additional units 1 = informed of additional
units
2 = NOT informed of
additional units
– 9 = NA
addunits3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
– 9 19 15.97 19 15.97
1 12 10.08 31 26.05
2 88 73.95 119 100
Frequency Missing = 13547
297 addunitaddress3 Additional unit address list address
information
including house
number and
street address
– 9 = NA
298 addunitcity3 Additional unit city/town list city/town – 9 = NA
299 addunitst3 Additional unit state list state 1 = AL
2 = AK
addunitst3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
3 = AZ – 9 9 75 9 75
4 = AR 44 3 25 12 100
5 = CA
6 = CO
7 = CT
8 = DC
9 = DE
10 = FL
11 = GA
12 = HI
13 = ID
14 = IL
15 = IN
16 = IA
17 = KS
18 = KY
19 = LA
20 = ME
21 = MD
22 = MA
23 = MI
24 = MN
25 = MS
26 = MO
27 = MT
28 = NE

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
67
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
299 addunitst3
(continued)
Additional unit state list state 29 = NV
30 = NH
addunitst3 Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
31 = NJ
32 = NM
33 = NY
34 = NC
35 = ND
36 = OH
37 = OK
38 = OR
39 = PA
40 = RI
41 = SC
42 = SD
43 = TN
44 = TX
45 = UT
46 = VT
47 = VA
48 = WA
49 = WV
50 = WI
51 = WY
– 9 = NA Frequency Missing = 13,654
300 addunitzip3 Additional unit Zip code List first 5 digits
of zip code in
which unit is
located
99999 = NA
301 addunitzipsuff3 Additional unit Zip code
optional suffix
List last 4 digits
of zip code
in which unit
is located IF
PROVIDED
9999 = NA
302 respdum Recode of respnum
(binary)
if respnum > 0
then respdum = 1,
otherwise 0.
0 = No Response
1 = One or more Responses
respdum Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 5576 40.8 5576 40.8
1 8090 59.2 13666 100
303 mt1resp Recode of respnum,
(2+ responses)
if respnum > = 2
then respdum = 1,
otherwise 0.
0 = Less than 2 Responses
1 = 2 or More Responses
mt1resp Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 12925 94.58 12925 94.58
1 741 5.42 13666 100
304 inspectdum Recode of inspection1 if inspection1 = 1
then inspectdum
= 1, otherwise 0.
0 = Inspection mentioned in
first response
1 = Inspection mentioned in
1st response
inspectdum Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 7855 57.48 7855 57.48
1 5811 42.52 13666 100
305 contprdum Recode of contprov1 if contprov1 = 1
then contprdum
= 1, otherwise 0.
0 = Not asked to Contact the
provider in first reseponse
1 = Asked to Contact the
provider in first response
contprdum Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 9333 68.29 9333 68.29
1 4333 31.71 13666 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
68
Var#
Variable
Name
Variable
Description
Variable
Details
Value Labels Frequencies
306 avail1dum Recode of available1 if available1 = 1
then avail1dum
= 1, otherwise 0.
0 = Unit NOT available in first
response
1 = Unit available in first
response
avail1dum Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
0 7543 55.2 7543 55.2
1 6123 44.8 13666 100
307 stratanew Recode of Strata 1 = small/medium (100,000 to
to 3999,999)
2 = medium-to-large (400,000
to 749,999)
3 = large (750,000 to 1,499,999)
4 = very large (1,500,000 to
4,999,999)
5 = largets (5,000,000 or more)
stratanew Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
1 492 3.6 492 3.6
2 1006 7.36 1498 10.96
3 1520 11.12 3018 22.08
4 7048 51.57 10066 73.66
5 3600 26.34 13666 100

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples
69
References
Ahmed, Ali M., Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 2008.
“Are Lesbians Discriminated Against in the Rental Housing
Market? Evidence From a Correspondence Testing Experiment,”
Journal of Housing Economics 17: 234–238.
Ahmed, Ali M., and Mats Hammarstedt. 2009. “Detecting
Discrimination Against Homosexuals: Evidence From a Field
Experiment on the Internet,” Economica 76 (303): 588–597.
Community Marketing, Inc. (CMI), and M. Davis and Company,
Inc. (MDAC). 2010. LGBT Rental Housing, Focus Group Final
Report. San Francisco: Community Marketing, Inc. Also available
at http://www.Communitymarketinginc.com.
Ewens, Michael, Bryan Tomlin, and Liang Choon Wang. Forth -
coming. “Statistical Discrimination or Prejudice? A Large Sample
Field Experiment,” The Review of Economics and Statistics.
Fair Housing Centers (FHC) of Michigan. 2007. Sexual Orientation
and Housing Discrimination in Michigan: A Report of Michigan’s
Fair Housing Centers. Available at http://www.fhcmichigan.org/
images/Arcus_web1.pdf (accessed January 15, 2013).
Fix, Michael, and Margery Austin Turner, eds. 1998. A National
Report Card on Discrimination in America: The Role of Testing.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. 2003. “Online Search
Preferences of Apartment Shoppers.” Available at http://www.
apartments.com/mediakit/audience.html (accessed April 18,
2012).
Friedman, Samantha, Gregory D. Squires, and Chris Galvan.
2010. Cybersegregation in Boston and Dallas: Is Neil a More
Desirable Tenant Than Tyrone or Jorge? Albany, NY: University
at Albany, State University of New York, Lewis Mumford
Center. Also available at http://mumford.albany.edu/mumford/
Cybersegregation/friedmansquiresgalvan.May2010.pdf.
Gross, L. P., and S. K. Aurand. 1996. Discrimination and
Violence Against Lesbian Women and Gay Men in Philadelphia and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: A Study by the Philadelphia
Lesbian and Gay Task Force. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Lesbian
and Gay Task Force.
Herek, Gregory M. 2009a. “Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related
Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United
States: Prevalence Estimates From a National Probability
Sample,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24: 54–74.
———. 2009b. “Sexual Stigma and Sexual Prejudice in the
United States: A Conceptual Framework.” In Contemporary
Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities: The 54th
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by D.A. Hope. New
York: Springer: 65–111.
Hogan, Bernie, and Brent Berry. 2011. “Racial and Ethnic
Biases in Rental Housing: An Audit Study of Online Apartment
Listings,” City and Community 10 (4): 351–372.
Horrigan, John. 2008. “The Internet and Consumer Choice.”
Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available at http://
pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internet-and-Consumer-
Choice/1-Summary-of-Findings.aspx.
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2001. Inside-Out: A Report on the
Experiences of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals in America and the
Public’s View on Issues and Politics Related to Sexual Orientation.
Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Also available at
http://www.kff.org.
Lauster, Nathanael, and Adam Easterbrook. 2011. “No Room
for New Families? A Field Experiment Measuring Rental
Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples and Single Parents,”
Social Problems 58 (3): 389–409. Also available at http://www.
jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2011.58.3.389.
National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), and National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (NGLTFF). 2011.
Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Dis-
crimination Survey. Available at http://endtransdiscrimination.
org/report.html (accessed January 15, 2013).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
2002. Housing Discrimination Study (HDS2000): Discrimination in
Metropolitan Housing Markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Wagner, Karen L. 2008. “Tools of the Online Trade,” Journal of
Property Management 73 (4): 32–37.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
Washington, DC 20410-6000
Mon