A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance 

of Housing Choice Vouchers

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

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.

A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance 

of Housing Choice Vouchers

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Prepared by

Mary Cunningham

Martha Galvez

Claudia L. Aranda

Rob Santos

Doug Wissoker

Alyse Oneto

Rob Pitingolo

James Crawford

Urban Institute

September 2018

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded this report. The 

authors are grateful to their funders, who make it possible for the Urban Institute to advance 

its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to 

the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings 

or the insights and recommendations of Urban Institute experts. Further information on 

the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at www.urban.org/support.

A panel of expert advisers made valuable contributions to the research team’s understanding 

of the housing-related chal enges that housing choice voucher holders face and to the research 

design and data analysis plan. Panel members (and their organizational affiliations at the time of 

the study) were Barbara Chandler (Metro Housing Boston, formerly known as Metropolitan Boston 

Housing Partnership), Stefanie DeLuca (Johns Hopkins University), Lance Freeman (Columbia 

University), Jack Goodman (Hartrey Advisors), Rachel Kleit (The Ohio State University), Rich 

Monocchio (Housing Authority of Cook County), Jennifer O’Neil (Quadel Consulting Corporation), 

Stephen Ross (University of Connecticut), MaryAnn Russ (Off the Grid Housing Consulting, 

previously with the Dal as Housing Authority), Corianne Scal y (Urban Institute, previously with the 

Department of Geography and Planning, University at Albany, SUNY), James Stowe (Montgomery 

County Office of Human Rights), and Phil Tegeler (Poverty and Race Research Action Council).

The authors thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to the successful completion of 

this project. David D’Orio designed the web-based data system used to enter and share testing 

information. Kriti Ramakrishnan helped review the relevant literature and past studies on voucher 

discrimination. Jessica Luna (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service) and 

Brent Howell conducted secondary data analyses, contributed to the research design, and 

helped with project management early in the study. Alison Akridge-Foy managed the voucher 

acceptance testing stage and contributed to the qualitative analysis. Tim Ware and Kel ey Hanni 

assisted the research team throughout the study with project management. Marge Turner 

provided sage advice during the course of the study and helpful comments on report drafts.

To complete this study, the Urban Institute partnered with the Fair Housing Foundation, the North Texas 

Fair Housing Center, and the Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey. This project could not have 

been completed successful y without the commitment and hard work of their test coordinators and testers.

Paul Joice and Carol Star from HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research provided 

excel ent advice and oversight throughout this research effort, and Mark Shroder offered 

valuable suggestions on the final report. We are enormously grateful for their guidance.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

Foreword

Foreword

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Housing Choice Voucher 

(HCV) program provides housing assistance to more than 2.2 mil ion families, making it HUD’s 

largest rental assistance program. HUD sets the rules and funds more than 2,500 public housing 

authorities (PHAs) nationwide, which administer the program. PHAs use the funds to pay a monthly 

subsidy directly to a landlord on behalf of an eligible low-income household. PHAs maintain a 

waiting list, determine tenant eligibility for the program, calculate how much the tenant will pay 

the landlord and how much HUD will subsidize, conduct inspections, and pay the subsidy—but 

many other choices and responsibilities are left to the tenant and the landlord. This study focuses 

on one particular choice that landlords make: whether to participate in the voucher program.

Under federal law, landlords may have the legal right to turn away voucher holders. Some state and 

local governments have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of source of income, 

but in most of the country landlords can choose not to rent to a household with a housing choice 

voucher. This study uses rigorous testing methods, across five diverse market areas, to assess 

whether and how landlords treat voucher holders differently from unsubsidized market renters. 

The researchers find that landlords often refuse to rent to voucher holders. In three of the five 

sites, the landlord denial rate was 67 percent or higher. In the two sites with lower levels of 

landlord denial (less than 31 percent), source-of-income antidiscrimination laws require landlords 

to accept vouchers. Sites with high levels of landlord denial also tend to have tight rental markets 

and relatively less-generous payment standards. In four of the five sites, landlord denial rates 

were substantial y higher in low-poverty neighborhoods than in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Landlords are an important, and sometimes underappreciated, actor in the HCV program. Data from 

HUD’s administrative systems indicate that the number of landlords accepting vouchers has declined 

over the past decade, while the number of vouchers being utilized has increased. For the voucher 

program to realize its full potential—to provide assisted households access to safe and decent housing 

in neighborhoods of their choosing—the program must appeal to a wider variety of landlords. HUD 

and PHAs can do more to understand and address landlord complaints about the voucher program. 

This study is an important step toward understanding a problem and beginning to identify solutions.

Todd M. Richardson

General Deputy Assistant Secretary    

Office of Policy Development and Research

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................  ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program ................ 3

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology ......................................... 15

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? ............ 23

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers? ................ 29

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently 

Than Other Apartment Seekers? .................................................... 45

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies .................................. 57

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes ....................... 65

Appendix A: Technical Appendix ............................................................ 71

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone 

Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles ............................................ 87

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person 

Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles ............................................ 93

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester 

Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark ............. 99

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis ....................................................... 105

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook ....................................................... 107

Appendix G: Testing Protocols .............................................................. 109

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources ............................................. 115

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms ........................................................ 125

References ............................................................................................ 167

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

v

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table ES.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode ....................... x

Table ES.2: Level of Effort to Find Voucher-Affordable Units ................... xi

Table ES.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial 

Rates by Site ................................................................................... xii

Table ES.4: Voucher Acceptance Test Results by Site and 

Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty Census Tracts .......................... xii

Table ES.5: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in 

Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey ............................ xiii

Table ES.6: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in 

Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey ............................. xiv

Table 2.1: Housing Choice Voucher Program Overview, 2016 ................... 4

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Testing Sequence for Housing 

Discrimination Study—Vouchers  .................................................... 16

Table 3.1: Select Test Site Characteristics ............................................... 19

Table 3.2: Voucher Protections in Study Test Sites  ................................ 20

Table 4.1: Advertisements Screened and Voucher 

Acceptance Tests Completed ......................................................... 24

Table 4.2: Level of Effort To Find Voucher-Affordable Units .................... 24

Table 4.3: ZIP Codes With No Available Units by Testing Site ................. 25

Table 4.4: Deciles of ZIP Code–Level Advertisements Screened 

per Available Unit for Testing, by Testing Site  ................................ 26

Table 4.5: Voucher Policy Information Listed in Advertisement Text ....... 27

Box 5.1: Sample Voucher Acceptance Test  ............................................ 29

Table 5.1: Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed, by Site and  

Poverty Rate.................................................................................... 30

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

vi

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table 5.2: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial  

Rates by Site ................................................................................... 31

Box 5.2: Sample “Unsure” and “Accepts with Conditions” Voucher 

Acceptance Test Narratives ............................................................ 31

Table 5.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Denial Rates by Site and Low-, 

Medium-, and High-Poverty Census Tracts .................................... 33

Table 5.4: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Comments ...................................................................................... 34

Table 5.5: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional  

Landlord Comments, by Site .......................................................... 34

Table 5.6: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional  

Landlord Comments, by Response—Does Not Accept Vouchers.. 35

Table 5.7: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional  

Landlord Comments, by Response—Accepts Vouchers  

With Conditions ............................................................................... 38

Table 5.8: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional  

Landlord Comments, by Response—Unsure of Voucher Policy  .... 41

Table 5.9: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional  

Landlord Comments, by Response—Accepts Vouchers ................ 41

Table 6.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode  ....................... 47

Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone  

Tests in Newark, New Jersey .......................................................... 48

Box 6.1: Examples of Landlords Missing Scheduled Appointments  

With Voucher Testers ...................................................................... 50

Box 6.2: Sample Questions About Employment and Other Information 

From Control Tests  ......................................................................... 51

Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person  

Tests in Newark, New Jersey .......................................................... 52

Table A.1: Household Composition ......................................................... 79

Table A.2: Sample Calculation of Counterfactual Income for Two- and 

Three-Bedroom Households  ......................................................... 80

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

vii

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table A.3: Initial Hard and Soft Test Targets by Site and Test Type ........ 83

Table A.4: Revised Test Targets Based on Field Experience................... 83

Table A.5: Actual Completed Voucher Tests by Mode and Site .............. 84

Table A.6: Initial and Final Voucher Acceptance Test Targets by Site ..... 84

Table A.7: Rental Housing Eligibility ........................................................ 86

Table B.1: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone  

Tests, Fort Worth, Texas ................................................................. 88

Table B.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone  

Tests in Los Angeles, California ...................................................... 90

Table C.1: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person  

Tests in Fort Worth, Texas ............................................................... 94

Table C.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person  

Tests in Los Angeles, California ...................................................... 96

Table D.1: Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of 

Differential Treatment—Newark, In-Person White Pairs Versus  

Black Pairs .................................................................................... 100

Table D.2: Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of 

Differential Treatment—Newark, In-Person Low- Versus High-

Poverty Census Tracts .................................................................. 102

Table E.1: Number of Respondents Who Accurately Identified  

Testers’ Race or Ethnicity ............................................................. 106

Table F.1: Codebook for Qualitative Analysis ......................................... 107

Table G.1: Testing Protocols .................................................................. 109

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

viii

Executive Summary

Executive 

the Civil Rights Act, aims to “prevent segregation 

and discrimination in housing, including in the 

Summary

sale or rental of housing and the provision of 

advertising, lending, and brokerage services 

related to housing.” Under the Fair Housing 

Act, landlords are prohibited from refusing to 

This report presents findings from a five-

rent to members of protected classes—defined 

site pilot study of landlord acceptance or 

based on race, color, national origin, sex, 

denial of federal housing choice vouchers. 

religion, disability, and familial status. Voucher 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

holders are not protected under the Act and 

Development (HUD) sponsored this study, 

landlords may have a legal right to turn away 

and it is the first large-scale, multisite study of 

voucher holders. Although voucher holders are 

whether landlords treat people with vouchers 

not protected under the Fair Housing Act, the 

differently than other renters. The project’s 

program disproportional y serves members 

goals were to (1) identify testing methodologies 

of protected classes—families with children, 

for measuring differential treatment of renters 

racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with 

who use housing vouchers authorized under 

disabilities. Some fair housing advocates 

Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act 

argue that claims under the Fair Housing Act 

of 1937, (2) identify the types and patterns of 

may be justified, because the act prohibits 

rental housing discrimination against voucher 

practices that may appear neutral—such as 

holders, and (3) measure the prevalence 

electing not to accept vouchers—but result in 

and extent of voucher-related discrimination, 

“disparate impacts,” for example, residential 

including differences in discrimination against 

segregation, for a protected class. Beyond the 

racial and ethnic minorities and differences 

federal statute, states and local jurisdictions 

between low- and high-poverty neighborhoods.

have passed local ordinances, often referred 

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 

to as source-of-income protections, to prohibit 

is the federal government’s largest rental 

discrimination against voucher holders. In 

housing assistance program. The goals of 

these locations, it is il egal for landlords to 

the HCV program are to increase access to 

discriminate against voucher holders. For 

safe, affordable housing units and to provide 

this study, we use the term discrimination to 

opportunities for low-income families to obtain 

describe unequal or differential treatment of 

rental housing outside areas of poverty or 

voucher holders, although this treatment is 

minority concentration (HUD, 2009). Voucher 

not necessarily il egal in all our testing sites.

holders can, in theory, move anywhere in 

the country where a PHA administers the 

Study Methodology 

program, but their housing choices are severely 

constrained by their ability to navigate the 

The pilot study was designed to conduct 

private rental market, find a unit with rent below 

voucher tests across neighborhoods in several 

the payment standard, and identify a landlord 

sites, roughly in proportion to the prevalence 

who will participate in the program. Landlords 

of voucher-affordable housing in each site. 

decide, for the most part, if they want to accept 

Finding affordable housing required sampling 

vouchers as payment for their rental units.

advertisements from the Internet from virtual y 

every ZIP Code in each site to achieve a target 

Is it il egal for landlords to refuse to rent to 

number of tests. Once eligible advertisements 

voucher holders? The Fair Housing Act (Public 

were identified, the study used a three-stage 

Law 90-284), enacted in 1968 as Section VIII of 

testing methodology to examine interactions 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

ix

Executive Summary

with landlords during the housing search. 

available housing. In both the telephone and 

The first stage, the voucher acceptance test, 

in-person tests, voucher and control testers 

was conducted in five sites: Fort Worth, 

also recorded detailed information related to 

Texas; Los Angeles, California; Newark, 

potential differential treatment, including landlord 

New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

statements about eligibility requirements (for 

and Washington, D.C.1 During these tests, 

example, applications, credit checks, cosigner 

a female tester who would be perceived as 

requirements, or eviction checks), qualifications 

White cal ed landlords advertising rental units 

for tenancy (for example, information requested 

to ask, “Do you accept housing vouchers?”

on marital status, income, occupation, or 

employer), and housing costs (for example, 

If a landlord answered that he or she accepted 

rent quoted by the landlord and any fees, 

vouchers, the test moved on to the second and 

incentives, or move-in costs). These measures 

third stages, which were conducted in three 

provided opportunities to assess whether 

sites: Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and Newark. 

landlords who stated they accepted vouchers 

In the second stage, pairs of White, Black, 

ultimately denied voucher holders indirectly. 

and Hispanic female testers, matched on all 

characteristics (including race and ethnicity) 

The original study design anticipated 

other than voucher use (for example, White 

approximately 2,550 voucher acceptance tests, 

voucher holder versus White non-voucher 

1,650 paired telephone tests, and 1,200 paired 

holder, Black voucher holder versus Black 

in-person tests. However, because landlord 

non-voucher holder, and Hispanic voucher 

denial rates were high, we completed far more 

holder versus Hispanic non-voucher holder) 

voucher acceptance tests (3,780) than telephone 

conducted telephone tests to determine 

and in-person paired tests (694 telephone and 

whether voucher holders were told about 

509 in-person tests; Table ES.1). Moreover, 

available housing and were able to secure 

because of high voucher denial rates in Fort 

appointments to view available units. If both 

Worth and Los Angeles, few tests from those 

testers were able to secure appointments, 

sites advanced to the second or third stages of 

they proceeded to the third stage—in-person 

testing. Newark accounted for 61 percent of all 

tests to determine whether voucher holders 

telephone tests and 73 percent of all in-person 

were able to meet with a landlord to see 

tests. In addition, high proportions of paired 

Table ES.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode

 Test Site

Voucher Acceptance Tests

Telephone Tests

In-Person Tests

Fort Worth, TX

1,146

142

73

Los Angeles, CA

998

126

62

Newark, NJ

782

426

374

Philadelphia, PA

422

NA

NA

Washington, DC

432

NA

NA

Total

3,780

694

509

NA = not applicable.

1  The Fort Worth site included Tarrant County and the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington. The Los Angeles site included all of Los Angeles County, except for 13 small cities with PHAs administering a small number of vouchers. The Newark site included four counties in northeastern New Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic. The Philadelphia site included the city of Philadelphia and Bucks County. The Washington, D.C. site included the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, Maryland.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

x

Executive Summary

telephone tests in Fort Worth and Los Angeles 

As our testers searched for units, they did 

sites ended without appointments to meet with 

not precisely model the housing search a 

landlords, which led to smal er than anticipated 

voucher holder might conduct. Nonetheless, 

sample sizes of completed in-person tests for 

their experience shows that searching for 

those sites. As a result, we discuss only 

housing with vouchers is time consuming and 

Newark’s telephone and in-person test results.

frustrating. Voucher holders must navigate 

the rental market on their own, searching 

Findings

for units that meet the program rental cap. 

This search requires combing apartment 

Finding Voucher-Affordable Units Is 

listings and making multiple telephone calls 

Challenging

to landlords to inquire about apartment 

availability. Many searches turn up short.

How difficult is it to find voucher-affordable 

units? During 16 months, we screened more 

Many Landlords Do Not Accept 

than 341,000 online advertisements across the 

Vouchers

five study sites to find 8,735 advertisements for 

rental housing that appeared to be voucher-

The voucher acceptance tests show clear 

eligible based on information in the ad. On 

evidence of outright denial of vouchers, although 

average, we screened 39 advertisements to 

denial rates varied widely (Table ES.3). Denial 

identify one potential y eligible unit. The effort 

rates were highest in Fort Worth (78 percent) and 

required to find voucher-eligible housing differed 

Los Angeles (76 percent) and only somewhat 

dramatical y across sites. For example, the 

lower in Philadelphia (67 percent). Rates were 

average number of advertisements screened to 

substantial y lower in Newark (31 percent) 

identify a potential y eligible unit ranged from 

and Washington, D.C. (15 percent). Moreover, 

more than 50 in Los Angeles and Newark to 30 

across the five sites, between 9 and 25 percent 

in Fort Worth, 19 in Washington, D.C., and 11 in 

of landlords said vouchers were accepted only 

Philadelphia. Once we found advertisements for 

under certain conditions or they were unsure of 

units that appeared eligible, Los Angeles and 

the voucher acceptance policy. Landlords were 

Newark required the most effort to contact the 

more likely to deny voucher holders in low-

landlord, an average of about two contacts per 

poverty areas compared with high-poverty areas, 

potential y eligible advertisement (Table ES.2). 

particularly in the sites with the highest voucher 

denial rates (Table ES.4). In four of the five 

Table ES.2: Level of Effort to Find Voucher-Affordable Units

Average Number 

Average Number 

Average Number of 

Number of Units Found 

of Advertisements 

of Advertisements 

Test Site

Contact Attempts per 

Eligible and Available per 

Screened per Potentially 

Screened per Completed 

Potentially Eligible Ad

Potentially Available Ad

Eligible Ad

Voucher Acceptance Test

Fort Worth, TX

29.83

1.67

0.51

58.40

Los Angeles, CA

51.55

1.98

0.38

137.33

Newark, NJ

52.68

1.97

0.37

143.76

Philadelphia, PA

11.15

1.77

0.47

23.59

Washington, DC

18.82

1.54

0.54

35.07

Across sites

39.10

1.83

0.43

90.35

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xi

Executive Summary

Table ES.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial Rates by Site

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

Denies vouchers

894

78.0

762

76.4

242

30.9

282

66.8

64

14.8

Accepts vouchers

132

11.5

148

14.8

342

43.7

99

23.5

306

70.8

Accepts vouchers 

82

7.2

48

4.8

92

11.8

14

3.3

42

9.7

with conditions

Unsure of voucher 

38

3.3

40

4.0

106

13.6

27

6.4

20

4.6

policy or other

Note: Testers recorded “accepts vouchers with conditions” whenever a landlord suggested vouchers would be accepted only under certain circumstances—for example, if the voucher was (or was not) from a particular public housing authority, if the voucher was for a certain unit size, if the voucher covered a certain amount of the rent, or if other requirements of tenancy (for example, a certain credit score) were met.

Table ES.4: Voucher Acceptance Test Results by Site and Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty 

Census Tracts

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

Voucher denial rate (%)

78.0

76.4

30.9

66.8

14.8

Standard error (%)

1.2

1.3

1.7

2.3

1.7

Average voucher denial rates 

85.0

81.5

37.7

82.5

16.2

in low-poverty areas (%)

Standard error (%)

2.1

2.3

3.0

5.1

3.0

Average voucher denial rates 

81.1

80.7

28.8

70.9

15.0

in medium-poverty areas (%)

Standard error (%)

1.8

2.1

2.6

3.4

2.8

Average voucher denial rates 

67.2

66.0

26.1

55.3

15.7

in high-poverty areas (%)

Standard error (%)

2.5

2.9

3.7

3.9

3.9

Statistical significance

***

***

**

***

** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: Significance tests measured the difference in denial rates in low-poverty tracts compared with denial rates in high-poverty tracts. 

sites (all but Washington, D.C.), voucher denial 

Washington, D.C., where voucher holders are a 

rates were substantial y higher for low-poverty 

protected class under local source-of-income 

census tracts than for high-poverty tracts.

antidiscrimination laws, denial rates were lower 

compared with sites without such protections. 

We found lower landlord denial rates in sites 

Philadelphia also has a source-of-income 

that have legal protections against voucher 

antidiscrimination law, but neighboring Bucks 

discrimination (Table ES.3). In Newark and 

County does not. In Los Angeles and Fort 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xii

Executive Summary

Worth, no portion of the testing area has state 

view housing, with some small variations in 

or local laws against voucher discrimination. 

treatment between the voucher and control 

Source-of-income protections were not the only 

testers that suggested landlords had some 

differences among the sites that could explain 

knowledge of how the HCV program works.

different outcomes. Washington, D.C., and 

Philadelphia had higher payment standards, 

In 93 percent of the 426 paired telephone 

and Washington, D.C., uses neighborhood-level 

tests conducted in Newark, both the voucher 

payment standards. Although these results are 

holder and the control tester were able to make 

suggestive of and consistent with a desirable 

contact with a landlord to get information about 

voucher ordinance effect, it is not possible 

housing, and 96 percent of testers who were 

to conclude that voucher protections cause 

able to speak to a landlord were told about one 

fewer denials. Housing market tightness, public 

or more available units (Table ES.5). Nearly all 

housing authority (PHA) performance, and other 

(98 percent) of the testers—with and without 

factors could also affect landlord denial rates.

vouchers—who were told that housing was 

available made appointments to view housing 

Landlords Generally Treat Voucher 

in person. During phone calls, landlords told 

Holders Equally During Paired 

the voucher testers about slightly fewer units 

Telephone Inquiries

compared with their counterparts without 

vouchers. The difference was statistical y 

Do landlords who say they accept vouchers 

significant but quite smal . On average, landlords 

treat voucher holders differently than non-

told voucher testers about 1.1 units of available 

voucher holders in phone calls? In paired phone 

housing and testers without vouchers about 

tests, nearly all voucher testers were able to 

1.2 units. Other small but statistical y significant 

talk to landlords and secure appointments to 

differences emerged through the Newark paired 

Table ES.5: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, 

New Jersey

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Testers able to obtain information about 

93.4%

1.4%

2.6%

– 1.2%

1.0%

426

housing

If testers obtained housing information

Testers told any units available

95.5%

0.8%

0.5%

0.3%

0.6%

398

One tester told about more units

13.1%

6.0%

7.0%

2.3%

398

***

Average number of units told about

1.22

1.14

0.08

0.04

398

**

Testers were able to get an appointment

98.2%

0.3%

0.5%

– 0.3%

0.5%

380

Average rent for any unit

$1,486

$1,494

– $9

$5

380

Average yearly net cost

$20,309

$20,424

– $115

$105

380

** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure, but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure, but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xiii

Executive Summary

telephone tests in how landlords discussed 

testers about more units and invited them to 

qualifications for tenancy and housing costs. 

inspect more units, but the differences are 

Considered together, these results suggest that 

small (for example, 1.39 versus 1.19 units). 

landlords understand how the HCV program 

works and recognize the voucher as additional 

Similar to the paired telephone tests, the in-

income available to the potential applicant. 

person tests found that other forms of differential 

treatment were minimal and appeared to reflect 

Landlords Are More Likely To Miss an 

the landlords’ understanding of vouchers 

Appointment With Voucher Holders

as secure income dedicated to housing. 

Only 58 percent of the in-person tests ended 

Implications for Future Testing

with both testers able to meet with a landlord, 

even though most paired telephone tests 

This pilot study explored different testing 

ended with both voucher holders and control 

methodologies to provide insight for design 

testers making appointments to meet with a 

and implementation of future studies.

landlord (Table ES.6). Appointment no-shows 

were common, with about 11 percent of in-

Voucher acceptance tests and in-person 

person tests ending with landlords standing 

paired tests yield the most valuable 

up both testers. However, the voucher testers 

information. One-sided voucher acceptance 

were 8 percentage points less likely to meet 

tests captured the primary form of discrimination 

with a landlord to discuss their housing 

against voucher holders. Such tests can be 

options. In addition, landlords told control 

used to measure differences across sites and 

Table ES.6: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark,  

New Jersey 

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Testers able to meet with landlord

58.0%

19.3%

11.2%

8.1%

2.9%

374

***

If testers able to meet with landlord

Told any units available

95.4%

3.2%

0.5%

2.7%

1.6%

217

*

One tester told about more units

22.1%

6.0%

16.1%

3.2%

217

***

Average number of units told about

1.39

1.19

0.20

0.05

217

***

If available units recommended

Inspected units

87.0%

3.4%

3.4%

0.0%

1.7%

207

One tester inspected more units

82.6%

11.1%

6.3%

4.8%

2.6%

207

*

Average number of units inspected

1.05

1.00

0.05

0.04

207

Average rent for any unit

$1,507

$1,508

– $1

$7

207

Average yearly net cost

$20,613

$20,725

– $112

$114

207

* p < 0.10. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure, but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure, but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xiv

Executive Summary

across different types of neighborhoods. The 

voucher holders would have required us to use 

in-person tests then provided a measure of failed 

a larger sample of in-person paired tests, which 

attempts to meet with landlords at scheduled 

we could not conduct due to the high rates of 

appointments. In contrast, we gleaned little 

landlord denials during the voucher acceptance 

unique information about differential treatment 

test. Future testing will need to balance the 

from telephone tests. These findings provide 

goal of understanding the role of race in 

continued support for the use of in-person 

voucher discrimination with that of isolating the 

testing rather than telephone testing.

incidence and nature of voucher discrimination.

Tester profiles must reflect HCV program 

Conducting testing in low-poverty areas is 

rules.  A clear lesson from this study is that 

feasible.  Testing in low-poverty “opportunity” 

any rigorous paired-testing study of voucher-

areas is feasible without oversampling. Analyses 

holder discrimination must incorporate HCV 

of American Community Survey data found 

program-specific policies and requirements 

that sufficient voucher-affordable units are in 

to minimize risk of detection and ensure that 

low-poverty areas. Further, we were able to 

findings are credible. Training must prepare 

find target numbers of advertisements in many 

testers for questions about the HCV program 

of these neighborhoods. The areas where 

and the PHA where testing takes place. 

finding advertisements proved most chal enging 

were places with low vacancy rates and not 

Assessing the role of race or ethnicity in 

necessarily areas with low poverty rates. 

voucher-holder discrimination is chal enging. 

The primary goal of this study was to identify 

To produce national estimates of 

whether voucher holders face discrimination 

discrimination against voucher holders, we 

compared with non-voucher holders. This goal 

recommend a multiphase approach.  Voucher 

led us to pair testers on every dimension but 

acceptance tests documented the extent and 

the voucher (for example, Black voucher holder 

variability of outright voucher denials in diverse 

and Black non-voucher holder). We were also 

testing sites, and revealed the implications of 

interested in understanding potential differences 

high voucher denial rates on paired-testing 

in treatment by race. Barring sample size issues, 

efforts. These implications suggest the need 

this approach would have enabled us to produce 

for a robust, multiphase design that can 

estimates of adverse treatment of voucher 

accommodate variations in denial rates. The 

recipients relative to unsubsidized renters of the 

first phase would include voucher acceptance 

same race or ethnicity and to compare these 

testing by phone in a large enough sample of 

estimates across racial and ethnic groups. If 

sites (for example, 50 sites) to characterize 

adverse treatment of minority voucher recipients 

voucher discrimination national y. Such a large 

relative to their matched unsubsidized cotesters 

sample, furthermore, would enable researchers 

were greater than that of White voucher 

to identify sites where additional testing would 

recipients relative to their unsubsidized White 

be viable and would further inform policymakers 

counterparts, we could conclude that race or 

about the nature of voucher refusal. The 

ethnicity exacerbates the negative treatment 

second phase would involve continued voucher 

of voucher holders. However, high voucher 

acceptance testing in a subsample of sites, 

denial rates undermined our ability to conduct 

accompanied by in-person paired tests.

enough in-person tests to perform conclusive 

analyses of whether differential treatment against 

More research on landlords is needed. This 

voucher holders varies by race. To rigorously 

study did not explore landlords’ motivations 

compare differential treatment experienced by 

for accepting or denying vouchers. In-depth 

non-White voucher holders with that of White 

interviews with landlords who reject, set 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xv

Executive Summary

conditions on, or accept voucher holders 

disincentives) for landlords to participate. For 

would shed light on landlords’ perceptions 

instance, PHAs could offer one-time signing 

of the HCV program and voucher holders. 

bonuses or financial incentives for new entrants 

or for landlords in low-poverty neighborhoods. 

Implications for Policy and 

Some jurisdictions are piloting initiatives that 

Program Management

provide security deposits or insurance against 

damages or tenants vacating the unit before 

The chal enges we encountered finding voucher-

their lease expires. Other jurisdictions waive 

affordable rental housing in some sites and 

permit fees for repairs or improvements or 

neighborhoods suggest that voucher holders’ 

provide landlords access to interest-free loans 

housing searches are daunting. The difficulty 

they can use to rehabilitate their properties. 

finding landlords who will accept vouchers, 

Set rents to be more competitive and improve 

particularly in low-poverty areas, likely increases 

program management. For vouchers to be 

the cost and duration of voucher housing 

appealing to private market landlords, they 

searches, limits voucher holders’ housing and 

must offer rent payments comparable with the 

neighborhood options, and increases costs 

market. This study did not examine the role of 

to local PHAs and HUD. With this difficulty in 

payment standards or Fair Market Rents (FMRs) 

mind, we consider several policy and program 

in the availability of voucher-affordable housing 

changes to encourage landlord participation 

or in landlord denial rates, but we did observe 

and to facilitate voucher holders’ searches.

that some sites with higher payment standards 

Pursue legal protections for voucher 

had lower rates of landlord denial. Adopting 

holders. Although vouchers holders are not a 

Small Area FMRs or payment standards better 

protected class, the program is comprised of 

aligned with market rents could make the HCV 

households that are protected under the Fair 

program more appealing to landlords in high-rent 

Housing Act and thus outcomes from the HCV 

markets. In addition to offering competitive rents, 

program have potential fair housing implications. 

improving PHA management could attract more 

Among our five study sites, landlord refusal 

landlords. Critics of the HCV program argue 

of vouchers is more common in jurisdictions 

that there are good business reasons landlords 

without source-of-income protections. 

do not participate; they include complaints 

Coupled with other available evidence, this 

about PHAs that have poor customer service 

finding suggests that legal protections for 

or that increase the cost of renting to voucher 

voucher holders might improve HCV program 

holders by taking too long to complete housing 

outcomes and merit further consideration.

quality standards inspections or by not sending 

rent checks on time. To increase customer 

Encourage landlord participation and 

satisfaction among landlords and decrease the 

recruit landlords, particularly in low-poverty 

real or perceived costs of doing business with 

neighborhoods.  One way to increase landlord 

housing authorities, PHAs could streamline 

participation in the HCV program is to make it 

these tasks so that landlords are not financial y 

more attractive through recruitment strategies 

penalized for participating in the HCV program.

and incentive programs. Some PHAs and 

neighborhood mobility programs that help 

Expand search time and provide housing 

voucher holders search for housing have 

search assistance.  Extending search times from 

liaisons to recruit landlords in opportunity 

60 days to 120 days would provide more time for 

neighborhoods. HUD and PHAs could strengthen 

voucher holders to identify landlords with units 

financial incentives (or remove perceived 

available. This extension is particularly important 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xvi

Executive Summary

if voucher holders are searching for housing in 

passive actors in the HCV program. Landlords 

opportunity neighborhoods or in tight housing 

play a critical role in narrowing or widening the 

markets where units are harder to find. Voucher 

choices available to voucher holders in their 

holders may also benefit from housing search 

search for safe, affordable, quality housing. 

assistance—a combination of pre and postmove 

counseling, landlord outreach, and financial 

support for moves. Our findings on the difficulty 

identifying landlords who accept vouchers—

particularly in low-poverty areas—coupled 

with the evidence base on the importance 

of living in high-opportunity neighborhoods 

suggest these services may be an important 

step toward improving program outcomes 

and voucher holders’ long-term wel -being.

Conclusion

This five-site study is the largest, most 

comprehensive test of voucher discrimination 

conducted to date, providing rigorous 

quantitative data on the prevalence of landlord 

denial and on the ways landlords treat voucher 

holders differently than similar prospective 

tenants. In designing and conducting nearly 

4,000 tests during 16 months, we gleaned 

lessons for future testing studies and housing 

policy, particularly related to voucher holders’ 

likely experiences searching for housing. We 

learned that the process of finding an available 

unit, reaching landlords, finding a landlord to 

accept vouchers, and then meeting with them 

to view the available housing was extremely 

difficult. It takes a lot of work to find housing with 

a voucher. The search requires sifting through 

numerous advertisements, making numerous 

calls, and facing frequent rejection. Our study 

reveals that many landlords refuse to accept 

vouchers. Voucher holders who want to find 

housing in an opportunity area—perhaps close to 

high-quality schools, jobs, and transportation—

face even more rejection. We learned that even 

if landlords said they accepted vouchers, they 

may treat voucher holders differently during 

apartment showings—standing them up at higher 

rates than control testers. Our findings should 

remind policymakers that landlords are not 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xvii

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

Chapter 1: Introduction

CHAPTER 1: 

vouchers to subsidize their rent payments. The 

goals of the study are to (1) identify testing 

Introduction

methodologies for measuring differential 

treatment of renters who use housing vouchers, 

(2) identify the types and patterns of rental 

housing discrimination against voucher holders, 

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 

and (3) measure the prevalence and extent 

(formerly known as Section 8) is the federal 

of voucher-related discrimination, including 

government’s largest housing assistance 

differences in discrimination against racial 

program. The goals of the HCV program are 

and ethnic minorities and from low- and high-

to increase access to safe, affordable housing 

poverty neighborhoods.

units and to provide opportunities for low-

income families to obtain rental housing outside 

This study used a three-stage testing 

areas of poverty or minority concentration (HUD, 

methodology to examine interactions with 

2009). Voucher holders can, in theory, move 

landlords during the early stages of a housing 

anywhere in the country where the program 

search, including initial inquiries about 

is administered, but their housing choices are 

available housing, discussions with landlords 

severely constrained by their ability to navigate 

about the application process or housing 

the private rental market, find a unit that meets 

options, and meetings with landlords to view 

the rental cap, and identify a landlord who 

available units. The first stage was done in 

will participate in the program. Despite the 

five metropolitan areas, with female testers 

importance of individual landlords’ decisions to 

who would be perceived as White, calling 

accept or refuse voucher tenants, researchers 

landlords of advertised rental units to ask if 

have gathered little information about landlords’ 

they accepted vouchers (“voucher acceptance 

behavior or their perceptions of the program.

test”). The second and third stages of testing 

took place in three of the five study sites 

Do landlords accept vouchers? Fair housing 

and used White, Black, and Hispanic paired 

groups have conducted small local studies, 

female testers matched on all characteristics 

mostly for enforcement purposes, to investigate 

other than voucher use (for example, race 

landlord behavior. Methods for these studies 

or ethnicity, income, occupation, household 

varied widely and included some mix of 

characteristics, and rental history) to capture 

passive screening of advertisements, screening 

more nuanced measures of the incidence and 

landlords over the phone to see if they accept 

nature of discrimination. 

vouchers, and sending testers to screen 

landlords during on-site visits, sometimes with 

Paired testing originated as a mechanism for fair 

a paired tester. No matter the methodology, 

housing enforcement agencies to investigate 

high rates of voucher refusal were common 

individual instances of discrimination and has 

across all studies. These tests, however, were 

been used for research purposes since the late 

not designed for research purposes and thus 

1970s to document housing market practices. 

have significant limitations in generalizability 

The method involves two individuals matched 

and replicability.

in every way except for the characteristic of 

interest—in this case, voucher use—inquiring 

To understand more about how landlords 

about an advertised housing unit. Testers’ 

interact with the HCV program, the Urban 

detailed records about their interactions 

Institute, under contract with HUD, launched 

with landlords are compared to quantify 

a five-site pilot study of discrimination against 

detailed measures of differential treatment. 

people who use federal housing choice 

The approach is a powerful tool to document 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

housing market discrimination in a critical 

of identifying voucher-affordable and eligible 

phase of the housing search—the initial step of 

housing in each study site. Chapters 5 and 6 

identifying available housing.2

present the findings from testing in the five study 

sites. Chapter 7 provides guidance for future 

Is it il egal for landlords to refuse to rent to 

voucher discrimination studies based on the 

voucher holders? The Fair Housing Act (Public 

experience of designing and implementing the 

Law 90-284), enacted in 1968 as Section 

current study. Final y, chapter 8 concludes and 

VIII of the Civil Rights Act, aims to “prevent 

discusses implications for policy and program 

segregation and discrimination in housing, 

changes to improve landlord acceptance of 

including in the sale or rental of housing 

housing vouchers. 

and the provision of advertising, lending, 

and brokerage services related to housing.” 

Under the Fair Housing Act, landlords are 

prohibited from refusing to rent to members 

of protected classes—defined based on race, 

color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, 

and familial status. Voucher holders are not 

protected under the Act and, except for a few 

local jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination 

based on a person’s source of income, landlords 

may have the legal right to turn away voucher 

holders. Although voucher holders are not 

protected, the HCV program disproportional y 

serves members of protected classes—families 

with children, racial and ethnic minorities, and 

persons with disabilities. Some legal advocates 

argue that claims under the Fair Housing Act 

may be justified, because the act prohibits 

practices that may appear neutral—such as 

electing not to accept vouchers—but result in 

“disparate impacts” for a protected class. For 

this study, we use the term discrimination to 

describe unequal or differential treatment of 

voucher holders, although this treatment is not 

necessarily il egal in all our testing sites. 

This report is organized into eight chapters and 

nine technical appendices. Chapter 2 provides 

an overview of the HCV program and of the 

literature on voucher program outcomes and 

discrimination. Chapter 3 provides an overview 

of the testing methodology, with a more 

detailed methodology discussion included in 

appendix A. Chapter 4 discusses the process 

2  Paired testing stops short of capturing the differential treatment renters might experience after submitting rental applications, such as whether applications are ultimately accepted or the final terms of a lease. Continuing with submitting an application would entail testers submitting fraudulent information on applications.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

2

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

CHAPTER 2: 

Chetty and Hendren, 2015; El en and Turner, 

Overview of 

1997; Jencks and Mayer, 1990; Sampson, 2012; 

Turner, Nichols, and Comey, 2012; Wilson, 1987). 

Since 2015, vouchers have received renewed 

the Housing 

attention as a potential tool to improve low-

income households’ access to low-poverty 

Choice Voucher  neighborhoods. New evidence from the Moving 

to Opportunity experiment shows that each 

Program

year a low-income child spends in high-poverty 

neighborhoods can negatively affect his or her 

economic prospects as an adult (Chetty and 

Hendren, 2015). Conversely, for every year a 

Characteristics of Housing 

child spends in a high-quality area, he or she will 

later experience an increase in income of about 

Voucher Households

0.5 percent (Chetty and Hendren, 2015).

The HCV program is the nation’s largest rental 

The program primarily serves female-headed 

housing assistance program, subsidizing the 

households, families with children, elderly 

rents of approximately 2.3 mil ion low-income 

people, and people with disabilities. In 2016, 

households as of 2016, with an annual budget of 

about 79 percent of voucher households 

approximately $22 bil ion. Commonly referred to 

nationwide were headed by women, 45 

as Section 8 after the relevant section of the 1974 

percent had children, 24 percent had an 

Housing Act, HUD manages the program through 

elderly household head or spouse, and 23 

a network of more than 2,200 public housing 

percent included a member with a disability. 

authorities (PHAs) nationwide.3

Most voucher holders (69 percent) were 

minority, including 17 percent Hispanic and 

The HCV program’s goals are to increase low-

48 percent non-Hispanic Black. The racial 

income households’ access to safe, affordable 

and ethnic makeup of voucher holders varies 

housing in a wide range of neighborhoods, 

across metropolitan areas, but voucher 

with an emphasis on helping voucher holders 

holders tend to be disproportionately non-

reach low-poverty, opportunity-rich areas (HUD, 

White compared with the population of the 

2009). In theory, by increasing voucher holders’ 

jurisdictions in which they live (Galvez, 2011).4 

housing budgets and setting voucher rent caps 

Table 2.1 lists characteristics of HCV program 

high enough to include a large proportion of 

participants in 2016.

privately owned rental housing in any given 

jurisdiction, the HCV program should enable 

By law, voucher holders are among the lowest 

recipients to find high-quality housing in a 

income households in the nation. To be eligible 

wide range of neighborhoods. The program’s 

for a voucher, a family usual y must have income 

emphasis on neighborhood choice and quality 

below 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) 

is rooted in the evidence that individual wel -

for its jurisdiction, and PHAs are required to 

being and life outcomes are closely tied to 

target 75 percent of vouchers to “extremely low-

neighborhood characteristics (Briggs, 1997; 

income” households—defined by HUD as having 

3  Although more than 3,700 PHAs exist nationwide, a smaller subset runs HCV programs. See, for example, Cooper and Cooper (2016). All demographic information on housing choice voucher households in this chapter is from HUD (2016). See Orlebeke (2000) for an overview of the history and origins of housing vouchers and other federal housing assistance.

4  For example, the share of voucher holders who were non-White ranged from less than 50 percent in Seattle and Portland to approximately 65 percent in Minneapolis and Phoenix and to more than 80 percent in Dallas, Chicago, and Charlotte. Nearly all voucher holders in Atlanta and Miami (96 and 97 percent, respectively) were people of color (HUD, 2016).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

3

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

Table 2.1: Housing Choice Voucher Program Overview, 2016 

Total voucher-assisted units

2,265,478

Total individuals in voucher-assisted households

5,350,188

Average household income 

$14,122

Average household monthly rent payment

$364

Average HUD per household monthly rent payment 

$760

Household characteristics (%)

Households with income < 50% AMI

94

Households with income < 30% AMI

73

Female-headed households

79

Female-headed households with children

41

Households with children

45

Household members with a disability

23

Households with an elderly household head or spouse

24

Race or ethnicity (%)

White, non-Hispanic

31

Non-White (any race or ethnicity)

69

Black, non-Hispanic

48

Native American

1

Asian or Pacific Islander

3

Multiple race

1

Hispanic

17

AMI = Area Median Income. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Source: HUD (2016) 

incomes below 30 percent of AMI or below the 

(PAHRC, 2016). Because vouchers are so scarce, 

federal poverty threshold. In 2016, approximately 

PHAs often hold lotteries for a place on their 

38 percent of voucher holders had annual 

HCV program waiting lists. 

incomes below $10,000, and 64 percent had 

annual incomes below $15,000. These levels are 

Vouchers are portable, and households 

well below the federal poverty level of $20,160 for 

with vouchers can use them to move to any 

a family of three. About one-third (31 percent) of 

privately owned rental unit that meets program 

voucher holders reported wages as their primary 

requirements and has a landlord who wil  

source of income.

accept vouchers. Broadly stated, the program 

is a three-way partnership between a PHA, 

Demand for housing choice vouchers—and 

a voucher recipient, and a landlord. Voucher 

federal rental housing assistance of any kind—far 

holders are responsible for finding available 

outstrips supply. Only about 21 percent of the 

housing, maintaining their units, paying their 

estimated 22 mil ion low-income households 

portion of the rent, and upholding the terms of 

eligible for housing assistance receive it 

their lease agreement. Voucher holders also 

(Kingsley, 2017). As of 2012, more than 2.8 

periodical y verify their household composition 

mil ion families were on waiting lists for vouchers 

and income with their PHA, and they must 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

4

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

comply with program rules. Landlords must 

before their voucher “expires” and is reissued 

maintain units to meet HUD’s housing quality 

to another household on the waiting list. Search 

standards and enter into both leases with 

times vary by housing authority, and PHAs may 

voucher tenants and housing assistance 

extend the search period for individual searchers 

payment contracts with PHAs. PHAs, in turn, 

or establish longer initial search periods. Once a 

administer vouchers in compliance with HUD 

household has found a potential unit, they must 

regulations and rent limits, inspect and approve 

request a physical inspection from the PHA. The 

all voucher-assisted units to ensure they meet 

PHA must grant approval before the household 

quality standards, and pay landlords monthly 

can sign a lease. 

for the voucher portion of the rent. Participating 

landlords receive the tenant’s share of rent 

HUD mandates that during HCV program 

directly from the tenant. 

orientations, PHAs provide information and 

resources to support moves to low-poverty 

Voucher households contribute 30 percent of 

neighborhoods. A management performance 

their adjusted income toward rent, with the 

scoring system for PHAs (the Section 8 

voucher covering the remainder of the rent up to 

Management Assessment Program) provides 

the rent cap—although a particular household’s 

bonus points for poverty deconcentration efforts 

rent burden may vary (Dawkins and Jeon, 

(for example, providing lists of units available in 

2018; Devine et al., 2003; Mast and Hardiman, 

lower-poverty areas). A few PHAs take additional 

2017; McClure, 2005).5 Vouchers are typical y 

steps to encourage moves to low-poverty 

used for units with rents below rent caps or 

neighborhoods—either voluntarily or as a result 

“payment standards” set by a combination 

of litigation—and operate “mobility” programs 

of HUD and local housing authorities, but 

to help voucher holders find and secure housing 

voucher households may choose units with 

in low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods 

rents above the payment standard if they pay 

(Cunningham et al., 2010; Galvez, Simington, 

the additional rent amount (their rent payment 

and Treskon, 2017; PRRAC, 2017). These notable 

equaling 30 percent of their adjusted income, 

exceptions aside, most voucher holders find 

plus the difference between the unit rent and 

housing on their own. Voucher holders are 

the payment standard). As discussed in more 

also typical y responsible for housing costs 

detail in the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and 

beyond monthly rent payments, such as security 

Voucher Payment Standards section of this 

deposits or application fees. 

chapter, payment standards may vary by housing 

authority. With some exceptions, payment 

Previous Research on Housing 

standards are typical y set between 90 and 110 

Choice Voucher Program 

percent of HUD-designated FMRs for the PHA’s 

jurisdiction.6 HUD calculates FMRs annual y by 

Outcomes

number of bedrooms and by jurisdiction (that is, 

Since the mid-1990s, an abundance of 

county or metropolitan area).

empirical research has examined HCV program 

PHAs al ow voucher holders at least 60 days to 

outcomes. The existing research finds that the 

find housing that meets program requirements 

program improves housing quality and stability 

5  A household may pay a minimum rent set by the PHA or 30 percent of its monthly income, whichever is greater. Households may be permitted to pay up to 40 percent of their income toward rent when they move into a unit. Alternatively, households may pay more than 30 percent over time if rent on a unit rises, and the tenant is responsible for the difference between the PHA’s payment standard and the new rent.

6  At the PHA’s request, HUD can approve a payment standard of up to 120 percent of the metropolitan area’s published FMR if area median rent justifies it. 

These exceptions are only prevalent in a few metropolitan areas with tight or competitive rental markets. For more information, see Title 24—Housing and Urban Development (2017) §982.503, Payment Standard Amount and Schedule.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

5

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

for vulnerable households.7 Voucher holders 

neighborhood quality from voucher moves and 

and assisted households general y move less 

live in significantly lower-poverty neighborhoods 

frequently than other low-income renters, who 

than similarly low-income Black families without 

tend to experience high rates of residential 

vouchers. However, Black and Hispanic voucher 

mobility and instability (Galvez et al., 2014b; 

holders remain underrepresented in high-quality 

Gubits, Khadduri, and Turnham, 2009; Thabault 

neighborhoods (Sard and Rice, 2014; Schwartz, 

and Platts-Mills, 2006). Similarly, studies 

McClure, and Taghavi, 2016). 

show that voucher use significantly lowers 

risk of homelessness and minimizes spells of 

Research is dated, but it suggests that many 

homelessness (Gubits et al., 2016; Khadduri, 

voucher holders do not move at all when they 

2008). Some research suggests that voucher 

receive a voucher, opting instead to “lease 

holders may live in higher quality units compared 

in place” in the unit they lived in before they 

with similarly low-income households, which 

joined the HCV program (Feins and Patterson, 

are more vulnerable to exploitation from private 

2005; Finkel and Buron, 2001). About one-

market landlords (Desmond, 2016). Final y, 

fourth of voucher holders do not move from 

voucher-assisted households also have lower 

their prevoucher housing during their time in the 

rent burdens compared with similarly low-income 

program (Finkel and Buron, 2001). 

households without housing assistance. For 

What Influences Housing Choice 

example, about one-half of all renters paid more 

Voucher Program Outcomes?

than 30 percent of their income toward rent in 

2015, and about 83 percent of households with 

The likelihood that voucher holders will 

annual incomes under $15,000 paid more than 

successful y find housing, and where they 

30 percent of their income toward rent (JCHS, 

will live, are influenced by various factors, 

2017). In contrast, the average rent burden for 

including the availability of affordable housing, 

voucher holders nationwide is between 30 and 

PHA policies, how voucher holders search for 

40 percent (Devine et al., 2003; McClure, 2005).8 

housing, and landlord wil ingness to accept 

vouchers. A full review of the literature on HCV 

However, the HCV program underperforms 

program outcomes is beyond the scope of this 

in helping recipients reach low-poverty or 

study; for our purposes, the literature on landlord 

opportunity-rich neighborhoods. The average 

discrimination is of primary interest. In this 

voucher holder lives in a neighborhood 

section, we briefly discuss the roles of market 

(typical y approximated as a census tract) with 

constraints and the housing search process 

lower poverty rates than the neighborhoods 

on voucher outcomes before turning to the 

where public housing units are located. 

theoretical framework and evidence on landlord 

Nevertheless, she lives in a relatively distressed 

discrimination.9 

neighborhood—only a small proportion 

of voucher holders reach low-poverty 

Availability of affordable housing.  Affordable 

neighborhoods (Devine et al., 2003; Galvez, 

rental housing is increasingly scarce in most 

2011; Pendal , 2000; Schwartz, McClure, 

metropolitan areas, which undoubtedly poses 

and Taghavi, 2016). Black households with 

a chal enge for voucher holders. National y, as 

children, in particular, experience gains in 

of 2014, only 46 affordable rental units were 

7  See Ellen (2017) for an overview of the literature on HCV program outcomes.

8  Average rent burden for voucher holders was 29 percent, with some variation by region, in 2000. In 2002, about two-thirds of all voucher holders paid less than 31 percent of their income in rent (Devine et al., 2003; McClure, 2005). Most of the households with higher rent burdens had extremely low incomes (McClure, 2005). Analysis of HUD microdata provided for this study showed most voucher households nationwide had rent burdens close to 30 percent in 2012, and nearly all had burdens below 40 percent.

9  For a recent overview of the literature on HCV program outcomes, see Ellen (2017). For an overview of PHA policies that may limit neighborhood mobility, see Tegeler, Haberle, and Gayles (2013).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

6

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

available for every 100 households with incomes 

vouchers—which are usual y set for large 

below 30 percent of AMI (Getsinger et al., 2017). 

geographies—may not accurately reflect rents in 

Market tightness may also affect the extent to 

submarkets, resulting in payment standards too 

which voucher-affordable housing units are 

low for high-cost areas yet inflated for low-cost 

accessible. Voucher holders in tighter housing 

areas. This variation causes voucher holders 

markets have been found to have lower success 

to cluster in lower cost areas where vouchers 

rates and longer search times compared with 

are more lucrative for landlords. For example, 

those in looser markets (Finkel and Buron, 2001; 

one study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin suggested 

Shroder, 2002). Although research suggests that 

that voucher holders paid slightly more in 

most neighborhoods contain some voucher-

rent than unassisted renters for comparable 

affordable units (Cunningham and Droesch, 

units, at a total annual cost to the government 

2005; Devine et al., 2003), low-poverty or 

of approximately $3.8 mil ion (Desmond and 

high-opportunity areas have fewer such units 

Perkins, 2016). In 2000, HUD instituted FMRs 

(McClure, 2011). Using 2000 census data, 

at the 50th percentile in metropolitan areas with 

McClure (2011) estimated that only 300,000 

high concentrations of low-income voucher 

FMR-affordable units would be available at any 

holders in high-poverty neighborhoods. Two 

given time in opportunity areas. Early research 

of our testing sites—Washington, D.C., and 

on voucher holders’ locations in the Washington, 

Philadelphia—had 50th percentile FMRs during 

D.C. area found they tended to live in areas with 

our testing period. In addition, Washington, D.C., 

higher proportions of lower-rent units (Hartung 

used neighborhood-specific payment standards. 

and Henig, 1997).

In another effort to more accurately set voucher 

Fair Market Rents and voucher payment 

payment standards to reflect local market 

standards. Vouchers are typical y used for 

conditions, HUD developed Small Area FMRs 

units with rents below thresholds that HUD and 

(SAFMRs) based on the 40th percentile of rents 

local housing authorities set. The monthly rental 

at ZIP Code levels rather than at metropolitan-

limit—or “payment standard”—varies by housing 

area levels. In 2016, the final rule on SAFMRs 

authority and, with some exceptions, is typical y 

began the process of phasing out 50th 

set between 90 and 110 percent of the HUD-

percentile rents and implementing SAFMRs in 24 

designated FMR for the PHA’s jurisdiction.10 

metropolitan areas where they were expected to 

expand housing options for voucher holders. 

HUD calculates FMRs annual y by number of 

bedrooms and by jurisdiction (that is, county or 

To date, some researchers have explored 

metropolitan area) to reflect the amount below 

how SAFMRs affect HCV program location 

which 40 percent of area rental housing units are 

outcomes, with mixed findings on how 

priced (or the 40th percentile). For example, an 

SAFMRs may influence the location and stock 

FMR of $500 for a one-bedroom unit suggests 

of affordable housing available to voucher 

that HUD calculations of census, American 

holders. For example, Collinson and Ganong 

Community Survey (ACS), and random-digit 

(2014) concluded that SAFMRs in Dal as, Texas, 

dialing survey data estimate that 40 percent of 

were more effective than standard FMRs at 

all one-bedroom units in that jurisdiction rent for 

enabling households to move to lower-poverty, 

$500 or less.11

lower-crime neighborhoods. In 2017, HUD 

released an interim evaluation report of the 

Some research suggests that in some markets, 

SAFMR demonstration by Abt Associates, Inc. 

the FMRs and payment standards set for 

(Finkel et al., 2017), which found that SAFMRs 

10  For more information, see Title 24—Housing and Urban Development (2017) § 982.503, Payment Standard Amount and Schedule.

11  See HUD (2018) for a detailed discussion of FMR calculations.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

7

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

increased the availability of units in high-rent 

reported being wary of unfamiliar neighborhoods 

areas and decreased the availability of units 

or suburbs and limited their searches to more 

in low-rent areas—with a net decrease in units 

familiar central-city areas (Clampet-Lundquist, 

available to voucher holders. A study by the 

2004; Popkin and Cunningham, 2000). Research 

New York University Furman Center (2018) 

on HOPE VI relocations found that families 

sought to estimate whether the decline in units 

avoided neighborhoods where they would be 

found in HUD’s interim evaluation would also 

one of few non-White residents (Smith et al., 

occur in the 24 metropolitan areas named in 

2002). Voucher movers have also been found to 

HUD’s November 2016 final rule. The Furman 

prioritize unit characteristics over neighborhood 

Center analysis found that using SAFMRs would 

characteristics (Rosenblatt and DeLuca, 2012; 

increase the share of affordable units in high-rent 

Smith et al., 2002). A lack of resources—such 

ZIP Codes, but decrease the share in low-rent 

as car access—can also limit voucher holders’ 

ZIP Codes. The study showed that the number 

ability to reach lower-poverty neighborhoods 

of units would decline in 4 of the 24 metropolitan 

and place them at more risk of living in higher 

areas, but overal , the expected increase in high-

poverty areas (Pendall et al., 2014). Final y, 

rent ZIP Codes was larger than the decrease in 

some research suggests that voucher holders 

low-rent areas. The study estimated that the total 

may have low expectations for available options 

number of units affordable to voucher holders 

or are poorly prepared to focus on school or 

would increase by more than 9 percent.

neighborhood quality as a primary search factor, 

particularly in the context of long-term financial 

Voucher housing search processes. Voucher 

and family instability (Rosenblatt and DeLuca, 

holders also report racial discrimination during 

2012). Moves are also often involuntary and 

their voucher housings search. A survey of 300 

under duress; these families often have limited 

voucher holders in Alameda County, California 

resources or time for searches, and they face 

found that nearly one-third perceived some 

considerable obstacles finding available units 

sort of landlord discrimination, and 14 percent 

or high-quality housing (DeLuca, Garboden, 

of those who perceived discrimination believed 

Rosenblatt, 2013). 

it was based on their race (Varady and Walker, 

2000). One survey found that about 4 percent 

Information is limited about how voucher holders 

of PHA administrators similarly attributed 

find out about housing, but they may rely mainly 

racial discrimination as the reason program 

on social networks or turn to housing authorities 

participants were unable to use their vouchers to 

for information, which could constrain their 

obtain housing (Maney and Crowley, 2000). 

view of available housing options. Although not 

focused on voucher holders, a study by Krysan 

A large body of literature explores voucher 

et al. (forthcoming) examined how renters in 

holders’ housing and neighborhood preferences 

Washington, D.C., search for housing and found 

and housing search practices. Most of this 

that renters tend to use their social networks—

literature is qualitative and shows that voucher 

mostly through existing friendships—to find units 

holders identify preferences for neighborhoods 

and to learn about neighborhoods and filter 

that are safe from crime and offer high-quality 

searches by ZIP Code and neighborhood. Krysan 

amenities or services. However, voucher holders 

et al. also found that the primary difficulty in 

do not necessarily target or end up in high-

housing searches is finding a unit in the desired 

quality neighborhoods (Cunningham, Sylvester, 

price range (forthcoming).

and Turner, 1999; DeLuca, Garboden, and 

Rosenblatt, 2013; Popkin and Cunningham, 

Several studies suggest that voucher holders rely 

1999, 2000; Smith et al., 2002). Voucher holders 

on a “Section 8 submarket” that is concentrated 

in Chicago and Philadelphia, for example, 

in higher poverty areas with landlords who 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

8

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

are familiar with the HCV program (Briggs and 

Several studies found that voucher holders 

Jacobs, 2002; Desmond, 2016; Desmond and 

perceive landlord discrimination (DeLuca, 

Perkins, 2016; Popkin and Cunningham, 1999; 

Garboden, and Rosenblatt, 2013; Popkin 

Smith et al., 2002). In some cases, voucher 

and Cunningham, 1999, 2000). Galvez (2010) 

holders may rely on PHA-maintained lists of 

interviewed 31 Seattle voucher holders and 

available units that accept vouchers (Smith et 

found that one-half perceived discrimination 

al., 2002). These lists may primarily contain 

during their housing search, either indirectly or 

units in high-poverty areas, and PHAs may have 

through outright refusal to accept a voucher. A 

disincentives to encourage voucher holders to 

2011 survey of more than 400 Chicago voucher 

engage in lengthy searches in lower-poverty 

holders found that nearly one-half reported 

areas (DeLuca, Garboden, and Rosenblatt, 2013). 

difficulty finding a landlord who would accept the 

Families entering the voucher program may also 

voucher (CLCCRUL, 2014). In addition to reports 

convince their current landlords to accept their 

of discrimination from voucher holders, a survey 

vouchers or may rent from landlords already 

of PHA administrators found that 11 percent 

familiar with vouchers (Kennedy and Finkel, 1994; 

perceived that landlord discrimination made it 

Turner, Popkin, and Cunningham, 1999). A smal  

difficult for voucher holders to use their vouchers 

qualitative study similarly found voucher holders 

(Maney and Crowley, 2000).

sought out landlords who would accept poor 

credit or who would keep costs such as deposits 

No national studies have examined, on a 

or application fees low (Galvez, 2010). 

large scale or across metropolitan areas, the 

extent or nature of the discrimination voucher 

Final y, voucher holders may face barriers 

holders experience. In recent years, however, 

that complicate their searches or housing 

local fair housing organizations have explored 

needs, such as large families, limited financial 

discrimination against voucher holders. 

resources for moves, or chronic health problems 

(Galvez et al., 2014b; Pashup et al., 2005; 

We identified 16 studies that examined the 

Popkin and Cunningham, 1999; Rosenblatt 

extent of landlord discrimination in jurisdictions 

and DeLuca, 2012). One study of assisted 

nationwide between 2000 and 2017. Studies 

households in Washington state found that PHA 

were identified from organizations in Austin, 

clients are more likely than other low-income 

Texas; Boston; Chicago; Cuyahoga County, 

households to face serious physical, mental, 

Ohio; central Indiana; Montgomery County, 

and behavioral health problems (Mayfield et al., 

Maryland; New Orleans; New York City; Newton, 

2015). Kennedy and Finkel (1994) and Shroder 

Massachusetts; Seattle; and Washington, D.C. 

(2002) found that voucher success rates are 

All but three studies (New York City in 2007, New 

lower for larger households. 

Orleans in 2009, and Cuyahoga County in 2016) 

were conducted in areas with source-of-income 

Landlord discrimination against voucher 

protections in place. 

holders. The existing research consistently finds 

evidence of both perceived and actual landlord 

The methodologies, scales, and testing 

discrimination against voucher holders. Much 

goals of these 16 studies varied, including 

of the research focuses on voucher holders’ 

screening print or online rental listings for 

own accounts of their experience with housing 

explicit discriminatory language (for example, 

searches and landlords. In addition, we identified 

“no Section 8” or “no government programs”), 

15 studies of various sizes and methodologies 

contacting landlords or rental agencies by 

that examined the extent and nature of 

telephone during a day or series of days to 

landlord discrimination by screening rental 

see if they accepted vouchers or applied 

advertisements or testing landlords. 

burdensome requirements to voucher holders 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

9

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

and sending paired or individual testers to talk 

Center, 2008), and in the other, discrimination 

to landlords in person about voucher policies. 

was found in 6 cases out of 58 (Montgomery 

For most of these studies, descriptions of 

County Office of Human Rights, 2009). 

methodological approach were limited. About 

one-half of the studies used convenience 

• Three studies conducted between 2003 

samples, and most samples were smal , with 

and 2011 in Washington, D.C., documented 

only five studies conducting more than 100 

landlord discrimination in the form of outright 

tests. Three studies used matched, paired 

denials or differential treatment of voucher 

in-person testing. One study looked at 

holders compared with non-voucher holders 

variations in treatment by different voucher 

in 61 percent of tests from 2003 to 2005 

holder characteristics but did not compare 

(Equal Rights Center, 2005), 45 percent of 

with non-voucher holders.12 Regardless of 

tests conducted in 2010 (Equal Rights Center, 

size or approach, the testing studies all faced 

2011), and 28 percent of tests conducted 

the chal enge of which characteristics to vary 

from 2011 to 2013 (Equal Rights Center, 

among tester pairs—such as voucher status 

2013). Washington, D.C., enacted source-of-

or race—and all the studies found evidence of 

income protections in 2005. 

voucher discrimination, in areas both with and 

• In Chicago, three studies conducted between 

without source-of-income protections. 

2001 and 2011 documented landlord 

• In New Orleans, 75 percent of landlords 

discrimination. In 2001, more than one-half 

rejected vouchers and an additional 7 

of the landlords contacted by telephone (55 

percent imposed extra barriers to voucher-

percent) stated they did not accept vouchers 

holding applicants (GNOFHAC, 2009). 

or presented significant obstacles to voucher 

use (LCBH, 2002). The Chicago studies in 

• In New York City, a study conducted before 

2002 and 2011 found that voucher denial 

source-of-income protections were in 

rates were higher in high-opportunity or 

place found that only 13 percent of units 

“exception rent areas,” where the Chicago 

accepted vouchers (ACORN, 2007); a study 

Housing Authority had assigned higher 

conducted shortly after protections were 

voucher payment standards (CLCCRUL, 

enacted found signs of voucher denial in 

2014; LCBH, 2002). 

363 advertisements screened on a 1-day 

Craigslist review (Freiberg and Houk, 2008). 

• In Seattle, tests conducted by e-mail and 

The study identified the total ads retrieved 

telephone showed evidence of voucher 

using specific key words but did not assess 

denials or differential treatment in 20 of 32 

a total number of advertisements available on 

tests (Seattle Office of Civil Rights, 2015).

the testing day. 

• Smal er studies in Boston and nearby 

• Two studies in Montgomery County, 

Newton, Massachusetts found evidence of 

Maryland found evidence of discrimination. 

denials or differential treatment of voucher 

In one study, discriminatory treatment was 

holders compared with non-voucher holders 

found in 15 percent of tests (Equal Rights 

(Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, 2001; 

Newton Fair Housing Task Force, 2008). 

12 Montgomery County, Maryland (Montgomery County Office of Human Rights, 2009), New York (ACORN, 2007; Freiberg and Houk, 2008), and Washington, D.C. (Equal Rights Center, 2005, 2011, 2013) used convenience samples. Austin Tenants’ Council (2012), New York (ACORN, 2007; Freiberg and Houk, 2008), Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Healy and Lepley, 2016), and Washington, D.C. (Equal Rights Center, 2005) completed more than 100 tests. The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston (2001) in Boston, Massachusetts and the Montgomery County Office of Human Rights (2009) in Montgomery County, Maryland completed small numbers of paired tests. The central Indiana study looked at variations in treatment by different voucher holder characteristics but did not compare with non-voucher holders (Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, 2013).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

10

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

• In Cuyahoga County, voucher holders were 

of White testers when an ad explicitly stated 

told that vouchers were not accepted or they 

vouchers were not accepted (Healy and Lepley, 

did not receive a response from a landlord 

2016). “Unfavorable treatment” included 

(although the control tester did receive a 

refusal to rent, refusal to negotiate, steering to 

response) in 92 percent of 104 tests (Healy 

other neighborhoods, or different terms and 

and Lepley, 2016).

conditions. Black voucher testers experienced 

differential treatment on every telephone cal  

Intersection of racial discrimination and 

they made to landlords renting in heavily White 

voucher discrimination. A few of the testing 

neighborhoods. These studies provide data 

studies explored the intersection of voucher 

on how Black voucher holders are treated 

discrimination and racial discrimination in 

compared with White voucher holders but not 

an effort to identify whether Black voucher 

on how landlords respond to voucher holders 

holders experienced additional discrimination 

compared with non-voucher holders. 

not experienced by White voucher holders. 

These studies used a variety of approaches 

How Effective Are Source-

to measure racial discrimination. The studies 

of-Income Discrimination 

revealed evidence that landlords racial y 

discriminated against Black voucher holders. 

Protections for Voucher Holders?

In New Orleans, in 9 percent of cases, a Black 

Voucher holders are not a protected class under 

voucher-holding tester was denied a unit that 

the federal Fair Housing Act, and landlords in 

a White voucher-holding tester had previously 

most jurisdictions can legal y refuse to accept 

been told was available (GNOFHAC, 2009). In 

voucher holders as tenants.13 Because the 

Chicago, 16 percent of Black voucher testers 

HCV program serves primarily families with 

were denied by landlords who had already 

children, people of color, and people with 

told a White voucher tester that vouchers were 

disabilities, some advocates argue that landlords 

accepted. Black voucher holders were also 

may discriminate against voucher holders as 

more likely to be told an unclear or equivocal 

a proxy for discrimination by race or other 

response about voucher acceptance compared 

characteristics protected under the Fair Housing 

with White voucher testers; landlords told 

Act (GNOFHAC, 2009; LCBH, 2002). 

about 22 percent of White testers something 

other than a clear yes or no compared with 

Some states and local areas have made efforts 

48 percent of Black testers (LCBH, 2002). 

to prevent discrimination against voucher 

The 2011 Chicago studies found evidence 

holders. As of late 2017, 13 states plus the 

of differential treatment of Black voucher 

District of Columbia had enacted ordinances 

holders in predominantly White neighborhoods 

that outlaw discrimination based solely on a 

(CLCCRUL, 2014). Final y, in Cuyahoga County, 

prospective tenant’s source of income, and 

26 percent of Black testers experienced 

local ordinances are in place in 53 cities and 

unfavorable treatment compared with 6 percent 

13  This legal status was not always the case. In 1987, Congress enacted a “take one, take all” provision, which required any landlord who rented to one voucher holder to accept all future voucher applicants, and an “endless lease” provision, which meant that landlords could not refuse to renew a lease after the term expired, absent good cause. Both provisions were removed with the adoption of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Title V of Public Law 105-276). Congress has since stated its intention that the program should “operate like the unassisted market as much as possible” and has acknowledged that in the past “some program requirements have constrained the ability of owners to make rational business decisions” (U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Report to Accompany S.462, The Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 with Additional Views 105 S. Rpt. 21). Quotations are from Committee reports (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105srpt21/html/CRPT-105srpt21.htm. ). Notable exceptions are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program and Home Investment Partnership Program properties, as well as multifamily properties purchased from HUD, which are required to participate in the program. In fact, some research suggests that voucher holders often rent low-income housing tax credit units (Galvez et al., 2014a; O’Regan and Horn, 2012).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

11

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

10 counties (PRRAC, 2017).14 Many of these 

Metzger (2014) found no statistical y significant 

state and local laws specifical y name federal 

differences in the geographic distribution of 

housing assistance or housing choice vouchers. 

voucher holders in metro areas with and without 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Texas 

source-of-income protections in place. 

has prohibited local jurisdictions from adopting 

source-of-income protections,15 and Oregon 

What Drives Landlord 

exempts voucher holders specifical y from 

Discrimination?

protections. California’s law excludes housing 

choice vouchers and other government 

Practitioners, researchers, and advocates 

assistance as protected sources of income, 

point to several reasons landlords might refuse 

but some cities within California name voucher 

vouchers. These reasons are typical y related to 

holders as a protected class.

landlord perceptions of housing authorities or of 

voucher holders, and whether landlords perceive 

We identified five studies that examined the 

that the benefits of participating in the HCV 

impacts of source-of-income protections on 

program outweigh the bureaucratic costs. 

HCV program outcomes. The studies have mixed 

results, but they suggest antidiscrimination laws 

The program is often portrayed as 

have modest effects on program outcomes. 

administratively burdensome for landlords, 

Looking at 50 metropolitan areas, Finkel and 

requiring paperwork, unit inspections, and 

Buron (2001) found that voucher holders were 

interactions with housing authorities that 

more likely to successful y find housing in areas 

are not necessary for unsubsidized tenants. 

with protections (success rates of 76 percent 

Some legal chal enges to source-of-income 

compared with 69 percent in areas without 

antidiscrimination laws have successful y argued 

protections). Freeman (2012) compared voucher 

that administrative burden is an acceptable 

utilization rates (a measure of the total number 

justification for landlords to deny voucher 

of vouchers available to a PHA that are in use) 

holders.16 Landlords may avoid voucher holders 

for adjacent jurisdictions with and without 

because of the costs associated with waiting 

protections before and after antidiscrimination 

for PHA inspections or approvals and with 

laws were passed or repealed. He found an 

maintaining or upgrading units to meet HUD 

increase in utilization rates after laws were 

housing quality standards. Interviews with 

passed (between 4 and 11 percentage points). 

landlords in Baltimore, Dal as, and Cleveland 

Freeman and Li (2014) and Galvez (2011) 

found that when landlords choose whether to 

found that voucher holders lived in slightly (1 

participate in the HCV program, they weigh 

percentage point) lower poverty neighborhoods 

the costs and benefits—including financial 

in jurisdictions where source-of-income laws 

incentives, perceptions of voucher holders, 

were in place, but did not find that such 

and program administration (for example, 

laws had a measurable effect on dispersing 

PHA management, inspections, administrative 

concentrations of voucher holders. Final y, 

burden). If the rents for a voucher holder 

14  California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin have state laws in place as does the District of Columbia. City laws are in place in California, Delaware, Florida, Il inois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin; county-level laws are in place in California, Florida, Il inois, Maryland, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of August 2017, proposed legislation is pending in Hawai , Maryland, and New York (PRRAC, 2017).

15  In February 2017, the Inclusive Communities Project, a Dallas-based nonprofit organization, filed a complaint against the state to challenge the legality of the law. See the Inclusive Communities Project Inc. v. Abbott (Case No. 3:17-cv-00440).

16  A ruling undermined Minnesota’s source-of-income antidiscrimination law that landlords did not have to comply with source-of-income antidiscrimination laws if they did not want to be subject to the administrative burden of participation in the HCV program. See Babcock v. BBY Chestnut (http://mn.gov/web/

prod/static/lawlib/live/archive/ctapun/0307/op030090-0729.htm). In contrast, in Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Associates (2007), the Maryland Court of Appeals noted that the voluntary nature of the program was not more important than the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing for low-income families (Daniel, 2010).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

12

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

and a non-voucher holder are fairly even, 

considerations about program administration are 

weighed more heavily (Garboden et al., 2018).

Landlord experience with or perceptions of 

particular PHAs—for example, bureaucracy, 

inspection timelines, customer service, or 

consistency of rent payments—may also lead 

them to reject vouchers from some PHAs. In 

New Orleans, for example, interviews with 18 

landlords revealed “extreme delays” in PHA 

rent payments and problems dealing with staff 

(GNOFHAC, 2009). Qualitative research with fair 

housing advocates in Baltimore, Washington, 

D.C., and Philadelphia suggested that landlords 

were reluctant to rent to voucher holders, 

because certain poorly performing PHAs made 

late rent payments (Zielenbach, 2006). The 

advocates also noted that absentee landlords 

concentrated in particular neighborhoods often 

failed to maintain their voucher-subsidized 

properties (Zielenbach, 2006). However, some 

landlords may avoid higher performing PHAs, 

because they might enforce housing quality 

violations more aggressively. Alternatively, Rosen 

(2014) found that landlords with less desirable 

units in distressed neighborhoods preferred the 

dependable, above-market rents vouchers offer 

and may target voucher holders and steer them 

to specific neighborhoods by offering incentives 

and amenities.

Final y, negative stereotypes of voucher 

holders are often noted as explanations for 

landlord discrimination. Voucher holders may 

be perceived as tenants prone to bringing 

crime or drugs to new neighborhoods or to not 

maintaining their housing.17 A study of voucher 

locations in 10 cities showed no evidence of a 

relationship between voucher holders and crime, 

and instead found that voucher holders tend to 

move to neighborhoods that are already high 

crime (El en, Lens, and O’Regan, 2012).

17  For evidence of this perception, see Rosin (2008) and Cunningham, Sylvester, and Turner (1999).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

13

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

14

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

CHAPTER 3: 

vouchers during a voucher acceptance test. 

Overview 

Figure 3.1 presents the testing process.

The study team conducted voucher acceptance 

of Testing 

tests in five study sites: Fort Worth, Texas; 

Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey; 

Methodology 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, 

D.C. Paired telephone and in-person tests were 

conducted in three of the five sites: Fort Worth, 

Newark, and Los Angeles. Each site contained 

This study was designed to identify testing 

multiple jurisdictions (cities or counties) but, for 

methodologies for measuring differential 

simplicity, we refer to each site by the largest 

treatment of housing choice voucher holders 

city in the testing area. We conducted testing 

in the rental housing market; for measuring the 

between April 2016 and July 2017.

prevalence and extent of housing discrimination 

When designing this study, we planned 

against voucher holders, including differences 

to conduct approximately 2,550 voucher 

for Black and Hispanic voucher holders 

acceptance tests, 1,650 paired telephone tests, 

and in low-poverty neighborhoods; and for 

and 1,200 in-person paired tests (for more detail, 

identifying the types and patterns of housing 

see appendix A). Because of difficulty identifying 

discrimination against voucher holders. This 

voucher-available units and high voucher denial 

chapter provides an overview of our testing 

rates (discussed in detail in chapters 4, 5, and 

approach and of the sites selected for testing. 

6), we ultimately completed more voucher 

Detailed discussions of the testing protocols, 

acceptance tests than anticipated (3,780) but 

testing oversight, sampling methodology, and 

fewer telephone and in-person paired tests (694 

data collection are in appendix A. The testing 

telephone and 509 in-person tests). Most of the 

protocols are in appendix G.

paired tests (426 by telephone and 374 in person) 

To measure discrimination against voucher 

were conducted in Newark.

holders, we used a three-step testing process 

that included a voucher acceptance test, a 

Testing Approach

paired telephone test, and as a continuation 

of the telephone test, a paired in-person test. 

The integrated study design involved initial 

In a paired test, two individuals matched in 

telephone tests preceding in-person interactions 

every way except for the characteristic being 

with landlords. This protocol enabled us to 

tested—in this case, housing choice voucher 

analyze differences between the telephone 

use—make the same inquiries to a landlord 

and in-person tests and to capture two related 

about housing and record details about 

aspects of discrimination—outright voucher 

the information and assistance provided. 

denials during the voucher acceptance test 

Comparisons of the test data that the two 

and differential treatment during the paired-

testers collected can provide direct evidence of 

testing stages. After every interaction with a 

differential treatment.

landlord, the testers completed detailed forms 

documenting their exchanges.18 In addition to 

Voucher acceptance testing required identifying 

the forms, testers created written narratives for 

voucher-affordable units available for testing. The 

all acceptance tests and for 20 percent of the 

paired testing required finding units for which the 

paired telephone tests and paired in-person 

landlords had directly acknowledged accepting 

tests. The narratives were collected primarily 

18  Appendix I contains the testing report forms.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

15

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Testing Sequence for Housing Discrimination Study—Vouchers

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

16

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

as a quality control mechanism to ensure the 

Advertisements Identified for Testing

testers followed the testing protocols, but they 

provided valuable insights on the interactions 

All ZIP Codes with units at or below the local 

with landlords discussed in chapter 6.

PHA payment standards were assigned 

acceptance test targets that would lead to the 

The testing protocols used in this study built 

sample matching the ACS distribution and were 

on those used in recent housing discrimination 

subject to ad searches and screening for eligible 

studies the Urban Institute conducted on race 

units to test.19 For each ZIP Code assigned a 

or ethnicity, disability, familial status, sexual 

target number of acceptance tests, we manual y 

orientation, and gender identity (Aron et al., 

screened online advertisements to identify 

2016; Levy et al., 2015; Levy et al., 2017; Turner 

advertisements for units that were eligible for 

et al., 2013). As in the prior studies, testing 

vouchers and available for rent. “Eligible and 

was managed central y by a field director who 

available” was defined as two- or three-bedroom 

oversaw project staff based at Urban and in 

units available to rent at or below the maximum 

the three pilot sites, where paired testing was 

rent for the PHA that covered the jurisdiction. 

conducted by local testing organizations. 

An additional layer in the “eligibility” process 

required the unit to be in the specific ZIP Codes 

The Study Sample 

that were searched for testing and had not yet 

This study was based on a random sample 

met their test target goals. Advertisements 

of available rental units that was selected to 

were manual y screened and sampled from a 

match the geographic distribution of voucher-

combination of up to nine websites, depending 

affordable rental units in each site. We used 

on the project site. If advertisements appeared 

special tabulations of ZIP Code-level 5-year ACS 

eligible for testing, the testers would attempt to 

data (2008–2012) to identify the total number 

contact the landlord to confirm eligibility and 

of occupied two- and three-bedroom units in 

availability, and begin the testing process.

each ZIP Code with tenants paying rents at 

Three Stages of Testing

or below the local PHA payment standards. 

These data were then used to calculate target 

Once advertisements for voucher-eligible and 

numbers of acceptance tests for each ZIP 

available units were identified, we used a three-

Code (or sometimes groups of ZIP Codes with 

stage integrated testing approach.

small counts of qualified units) in each site. 

For example, for a site with voucher-affordable 

Step 1. Voucher acceptance test.  Initial contact 

housing units evenly distributed across four 

with a landlord was by telephone, e-mail, or 

ZIP Codes (25 percent in each ZIP Code), we 

electronic contact form if no telephone number 

aimed to complete 25 percent of all acceptance 

appeared in the advertisement. The tester tried 

tests in each ZIP Code. Thus, we searched all 

to confirm if the advertised unit was available 

ZIP Codes with units at or below the local PHA 

and eligible and to inquire whether vouchers 

payment standards for eligible advertisements. 

were accepted. Testers portrayed single-female 

These ZIP Code-level testing targets were only 

voucher holders who would be perceived as 

for the acceptance tests, not for the paired tests. 

White, with one to four children, depending on 

The geographic distribution of the paired tests 

the number of bedrooms in the available housing. 

also reflected areas where landlords accepted 

Testers completed written narratives for each 

vouchers and, for the in-person tests, agreed to 

test describing what the landlord said about 

meet with the testers.

voucher acceptance and the HCV program and 

19  ZIP Codes without units at or below the local PHA payment standards (according to ACS data) were not assigned a voucher acceptance test target; no advertisements in these locations were sampled nor screened.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

17

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

participants. Testers also obtained detailed 

presented as non-Hispanic White females in 

address information for the unit to match the 

name and voice. For paired tests, the female 

housing to its census tract location and record 

testers were matched on race or ethnicity and 

the tract’s poverty rate.

age and were assigned comparable household 

compositions.21 Testers portrayed single mothers 

Step 2. Paired telephone test.  When a voucher 

or grandmothers with one to four children or 

acceptance test identified at least one eligible, 

grandchildren, with the number, sex, and age of 

available unit for which the landlord stated that 

children assigned to testers depending on the 

vouchers were accepted, the advertisement was 

number of bedrooms available and the relevant 

assigned to a tester pair to conduct a telephone 

PHA guidelines for the unit location. Single 

test.20 Each tester contacted the landlord 

women with children were selected for the tester 

independently, with one tester portraying a 

profiles, because they represent 41 percent of 

voucher holder who mentioned having a voucher 

housing choice voucher holders national y and in 

at the start of the call and one tester portraying 

our test sites (HUD, 2016).

a prospective renter who did not have a 

voucher. Each tester gathered information about 

Testers designated as voucher holders were 

availability, cost, whether utilities were included 

assigned household incomes based on 30 

in the rent, the exact address of the unit, the 

percent of AMI, and control tester incomes were 

application process, the security deposit, any 

based on 30 percent of AMI plus the estimated 

fees, and other terms and conditions. Testers 

annual value of the voucher. Otherwise, voucher 

posing as voucher holders also documented any 

holders were assigned the same or slightly 

questions or comments made about the voucher. 

better qualifications than the control testers (for 

Both testers attempted to obtain an appointment 

example, longer time at their current residence, 

to view the housing.

longer time on the job). The slight differences 

in some assigned tester characteristics helped 

Step 3. Paired in-person test.  The telephone 

minimize the risk of detection, as identical 

tests in which both testers obtained an 

characteristics might call attention to the 

appointment proceeded to an in-person test. 

testers. The voucher tester was assigned 

As in the telephone tests, testers posing as 

the slightly better qualifications in housing 

voucher holders mentioned that they had a 

and employment tenure to ensure that any 

housing voucher at the beginning of their site 

unfavorable treatment by the landlord was not 

visit. Testers gathered the same key information 

attributable to these variables.

as in the preceding telephone tests in addition to 

information about the quality of the unit’s interior 

The voucher testers were all assigned vouchers 

and exterior conditions. Testers documented any 

from the local PHA for the jurisdiction where they 

follow-up contact with a landlord (via telephone, 

were looking for housing, and they portrayed 

e-mail, or text message) within 14 days following 

people who were moving to a new unit with a 

a site visit. If a landlord made repeated contact 

voucher they had received more than a year 

with a tester, test coordinators instructed her to 

before (as opposed to using a newly issued 

conclude interactions with the landlord.

voucher). This procedure prevented potential 

conflicts with testers portraying new voucher 

Tester Profiles

holders for PHAs that were not issuing new 

All tests were conducted by female testers. 

vouchers during the testing period.

For the voucher acceptance tests, testers 

20  A few tests proceeded to telephone testing after landlords stated they did not know whether vouchers were accepted, but that the tester should continue to pursue her inquiries while they determined their voucher policy.

21  Appendix E discusses the study’s ethnic or racial identifiability analysis.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

18

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

Voucher Discrimination and Race or 

Testing Sites

Ethnicity

The five sites included in the study were 

Although the primary research question focused 

selected based on size, geographic diversity, 

on the prevalence of discrimination against 

number of voucher recipients, demographic 

voucher holders, it was important to explore 

characteristics, and the capacity of local testing 

how discrimination against testers based on 

organizations. When evaluating potential paired-

voucher usage might vary by race or ethnicity. 

testing sites, the project team gave the highest 

After considering several approaches for testing, 

consideration to metropolitan areas with testing 

we elected to conduct in-person tests, paired on 

organizations that had prior testing experience, 

race (White voucher holder versus White non-

including exemplary performance on prior 

voucher holder, Black voucher holder versus 

housing discrimination studies. Urban Institute 

Black non-voucher holder, Hispanic voucher 

staff based in Washington, D.C., exclusively 

holder versus Hispanic non-voucher holder). 

conducted the acceptance tests, with local 

Each paired test involved one tester posing as 

testing organizations conducting paired testing.

an unsubsidized renter and a second tester (of 

the same race and ethnicity) posing as a voucher 

Ultimately, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. 

recipient. Barring sample size issues, this 

were selected for voucher acceptance tests, 

approach enables us to produce estimates of 

with Fort Worth, Newark, and Los Angeles 

adverse treatment of voucher recipients relative 

selected for both acceptance and paired tests. 

to unsubsidized renters of the same race or 

Table 3.1 provides an overview of the testing 

ethnicity and to compare these estimates across 

sites.22 The three testing organizations that 

racial and ethnic groups. If adverse treatment 

conducted paired tests for this study were 

of minority voucher recipients relative to their 

familiar with their local rental markets, their local 

matched unsubsidized cotesters was greater 

PHAs, and the PHA policies that could affect 

than that of White voucher recipients relative to 

data collection, and all had experience working 

their unsubsidized White counterparts, we could 

with housing choice voucher holders either 

conclude that race or ethnicity exacerbates the 

during the housing search process or because 

negative treatment of voucher holders.

of a discrimination complaint. All three paired-

Table 3.1: Select Test Site Characteristics

Number of Assigned 

Rental Vacancy Rate 

Test Site

Public Housing 

Number of Counties

Voucher-Assisted Units

(%)

Authorities

Fort Worth, TX

3

1

9.2

12,177

Los Angeles, CA

6

1

3.7

78,448

Newark, NJ

4

4

3.8–9.0

22,947

Philadelphia, PA

2

2

6.4–7.4

23,526

Washington, DC

2

2

3.9–5.5

21,942

Notes: Rental vacancy rates are available at the county level; ranges are provided for sites covering more than one county.  Voucher-assisted units are the number of housing choice voucher households each PHA assisted, aggregated over the assigned PHAs in the test site.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2015); HUD (2016) 

22  All area population and vacancy rate data included in the test-site profiles are from the American Communities Survey’s 2011–2015 5-year estimates (Census Bureau, 2015). The counts of housing choice voucher households in each site are from HUD (2016).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

19

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

testing sites conducted tests with White and 

Table 3.2: Voucher Protections in Study  

Black testers. Hispanic testers were employed 

Test Sites

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, which have 

sizable Hispanic populations. 

Test site

State

County

City

Legal Protections for Voucher Holders 

Fort Worth, TX

in Testing Sites

Los Angeles, CA

Newark, NJ

X

As noted previously, the Fair Housing Act does 

Philadelphia, PA

X

not name voucher holders as a federal y 

Washington, DC

X

X

protected class, although federal law does 

prohibit source-of-income discrimination in 

Source: PRRAC (2017)

properties receiving federal tax credits, grants, 

and other forms of federal assistance (NHLP, 

Three PHAs administer housing choice 

2017). The presence of source-of-income 

vouchers in the testing area—the Tarrant 

protections was not a selection criterion for the 

County Housing Assistance Office, Fort Worth 

study, because assessing the effectiveness of 

Housing Solutions, and the Arlington Housing 

such protections was not among the research 

Authority. The three PHAs were authorized 

questions that HUD identified and would be very 

to administer 12,177 vouchers in 2016. The 

difficult with a small sample of sites. 

Tarrant County PHA serves all areas in the 

Nevertheless, voucher protections did vary 

county, including the citywide jurisdictions of 

across the five test sites. The Newark and 

Fort Worth Housing Solutions and the Arlington 

Washington, D.C. sites had protections 

Housing Authority. In 2015, the voucher issuance 

throughout all areas tested (the state of New 

success rate was 42 percent for the Tarrant 

Jersey, the District of Columbia, and 

County Housing Assistance Office, 45 percent 

Montgomery County, Maryland), the Philadelphia 

for Fort Worth Housing Solutions, and 36 

site had partial coverage (the city of Philadelphia 

percent for the Arlington Housing Authority.23 

but not Bucks County, Pennsylvania), and the 

The PHA in Tarrant County opened the waiting 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles sites did not have 

list immediately before testing in March 2017 for 

any protections in place. Table 3.2 provides an 

the first time in 7 years. The Arlington Housing 

overview of legal coverage in the voucher testing 

Authority’s waiting list was open for brief 

sites as of September 2017. 

windows before, during, and after testing.24 The 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Fort Worth Housing Solutions waiting list has not 

been opened since July 2011.

Voucher acceptance tests and paired testing 

took place in Tarrant County, which consists of 

Los Angeles, California

the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington, covers 864 

The Los Angeles County site included all cities 

square miles, and represents an approximate 

within the county, excluding 13 small cities with 

population of 1.9 mil ion. The rental vacancy rate 

individual PHAs administering small numbers of 

for Tarrant County was 9.2 percent in 2015.

23  HUD provided the study team with success rates for PHAs in the study sites from the Inventory Management System (IMS)/Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) electronic system that PHAs use to submit information. For some households (for which the IMS/PIC does not include a record of a successful lease up or a record of a voucher expiration), HUD staff must infer whether a lease up was successful. As a result, the voucher success rates reported here are estimates, and their reliability depends on the accuracy of IMS/PIC data reported by the housing authority.

24  The Arlington Housing Authority’s waiting list was open before testing in May 2015 and June 2015, during testing in August 2016, and after testing from August 23–29, 2017.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

20

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

vouchers.25 Both voucher acceptance tests and 

HCV program that the New Jersey Department 

paired testing took place in Los Angeles. The 

of Community Affairs administers as the PHA 

testing area covered 3,882 square miles and 

for all tests within this site. The agency is 

represented an approximate population of more 

authorized to administer 22,947 vouchers across 

than 10 mil ion. The rental vacancy rate for Los 

New Jersey. If asked, testers would indicate 

Angeles County was 3.7 percent in 2015—the 

they had a voucher from the Department of 

lowest of the five test sites.

Community Affairs and if pressed for more 

details, they would say that the voucher was 

Six PHAs administer vouchers in the test sites: 

processed through the local county office. The 

the Housing Authority of the County of Los 

Department of Community Affairs sets voucher 

Angeles, the Housing Authority of the City of Los 

payment standards at the county level, which 

Angeles, the Glendale Housing Authority, the 

meant, for example, that a test conducted in 

City of Inglewood Housing Authority, the City of 

Bergen County would have a different payment 

Pasadena Housing Department, and the City of 

standard than a test conducted in Essex 

Torrance Housing Assistance Office. All together, 

County. The voucher issuance success rate for 

these PHAs were authorized to administer 78,448 

the Department of Community Affairs was 84 

vouchers in 2016. In 2015, voucher issuance 

percent in 2015. The agency’s waiting list has 

success rates for these PHAs ranged from 31 

been closed since June 2016, but some local 

percent at the Torrance Housing Assistance 

PHAs within the test site have opened their 

Office to 61 percent at the Glendale Housing 

waiting lists as recently as April 2017 (Housing 

Authority. Although none of these PHAs had 

Authority of the City of Passaic) and May 2017 

open voucher waiting lists during the test period, 

(Jersey City Housing Authority).27

the Inglewood Housing Authority’s waiting list 

was open 4 months before testing in December 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

2015.26 The Housing Authority of the City of Los 

Angeles will open its waiting list in early 2018 for 

Only voucher acceptance tests were conducted 

the first time since October 2004 (HACLA, 2017).

in Philadelphia. The test site included the 

City and County of Philadelphia, as well as 

Newark, New Jersey

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which is north 

of Philadelphia. The test site covered 738 

The Newark test site included four counties 

square miles and represented a population of 

in northeastern New Jersey—Bergen, Essex, 

approximately 2.2 mil ion residents. The rental 

Hudson, and Passaic. Voucher acceptance tests 

vacancy rate was 7.4 percent in Philadelphia 

and paired testing took place in Newark. This 

County and 6.4 percent in Bucks County.

test site represented 593 square miles, with a 

population of roughly 2.9 mil ion residents. The 

Two PHAs operate housing authorities in 

rental vacancy rates for these counties in 2015 

Philadelphia and Bucks County—the Philadelphia 

ranged from a low of 3.8 percent in Bergen to 

Housing Authority and the Bucks County 

close to 5 percent in Hudson and Passaic to 9 

Housing Authority. Philadelphia’s program 

percent in Essex.

is authorized for 20,110 vouchers and Bucks 

County is authorized for 3,416. The 2015 

Rather than assigning multiple PHAs to tests 

voucher issuance success rates for the housing 

throughout the site, we used the statewide 

authorities in Philadelphia and Bucks County 

25  The 13 cities not included in the Los Angeles test site were Baldwin Park, Burbank, Compton, Culver City, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Long Beach, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, and South Gate. The cities of Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, and Torrance were included as of July 2016 to increase the stock of eligible units for testing.

26  Affordable Housing Online. 2017. “Section 8 Waiting Lists in California.” https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/California.

27  https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/New-Jersey.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

21

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

were 30 and 77 percent, respectively. Both 

waiting lists are currently closed; the Philadelphia 

Housing Authority’s waiting list has not been 

open since March 2010.28 Before that, the 

Philadelphia Housing Authority’s waiting list was 

open in 2000.

Washington, D.C.

Only voucher acceptance tests were conducted 

in Washington, D.C. The test jurisdiction included 

the District of Columbia and Montgomery 

County, Maryland. The city of Rockvil e in 

Montgomery County was excluded from testing. 

This test site covered 552 square miles and 

represented a population of roughly 1.7 mil ion 

residents. The rental vacancy rate in 2015 was 

5.5 percent for the District of Columbia and 3.9 

percent for Montgomery County. 

Two PHAs were assigned to voucher-holder 

profiles in Washington, D.C.—the District of 

Columbia Housing Authority and the Housing 

Opportunities Commission of Montgomery 

County. The D.C. Housing Authority is authorized 

to administer 14,866 vouchers, and the 

Montgomery County PHA is authorized for 7,076. 

The D.C. Housing Authority’s voucher success 

rate was 90 percent in 2015, but the success 

rate was only 39 percent in Montgomery County. 

The Montgomery County voucher waiting list is 

currently open,29 but the Washington, D.C. waiting 

list has not opened since April 2013.30 The D.C. 

Housing Authority was the only PHA in the study 

to vary its payment standard by neighborhood 

location, as well as by number of bedrooms. For 

example, the payment standard for a unit in the 

Columbia Heights neighborhood differs from 

the payment standard for a unit in neighboring 

Petworth. Thus, although Montgomery County 

tests were based on one of two possible 

payment standards, tests in Washington, D.C., 

were based on 88 possible payment standards 

from 22 neighborhood locations.

28  https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/Pennsylvania.

29  https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/Maryland.

30  https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/District-Of-Columbia.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

22

Chapter 4:  How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units?

CHAPTER 4:  

detection risk, we excluded advertisements for 

How Difficult Is It  consideration for testing, because the landlords 

offering them had recently been cal ed about 

a different unit. If we found a given unit to be 

To Find Voucher- ineligible or no longer available for rent, the 

testers would seek out other advertisements 

Affordable 

for the same target ZIP Code. We screened 

advertisements and selected for testing in 

Units?

this way until we reached the target number 

of tests for the ZIP code. Once we identified 

advertisements that appeared to be eligible for 

vouchers, the testers would call landlords to 

Methodology

confirm the units were, in fact, eligible (that is, 

two or three bedrooms, renting at or below the 

Before we could begin testing, we needed to find 

maximum rent for the ZIP Code’s local PHA) and 

landlords advertising units that had a rent below 

available for rent. We tested only advertisements 

the payment standard and were available for 

for units that were eligible and available.

rent. To do so, testers manual y screened online 

apartment listings to identify units that appeared 

The Search for Voucher-

to be eligible for testing (that is, advertisements 

Affordable Units 

for units meeting size and rent requirements 

and in ZIP Codes where tests remained to 

Most voucher holders must navigate the private 

be completed). Target numbers of voucher 

rental market and find a unit on their own. 

acceptance tests were set by ZIP Code and 

Searching for housing that meets the voucher 

selected to match the geographic distribution 

rental cap, as noted previously, can be difficult. 

of voucher-affordable rental units in each site. 

As our testers searched for units, they were not 

To find available units in the target ZIP Codes, 

modeling a voucher search exactly—for example, 

testers sampled rental advertisements from up 

they used specific housing search websites, they 

to nine websites. Testers used five of the nine 

may have excluded properties because landlords 

websites (apartments.com, craigslist.org, move.

were already cal ed about other units, and they 

com, trulia.com, and zil ow.com) in all five sites; 

had to look for advertisements in specific areas—

the remaining four (apartmentguide.com, rent.

but our ability to find voucher-eligible units for 

com, forrent.com, and socialserve.com) were 

testing provides some insight into what voucher 

also used in cities in which the project team 

holders may experience when searching for 

determined they might provide units not listed on 

a unit and a landlord to accept their voucher. 

other websites.31

Overal , we found that identifying advertisements 

that were eligible for the program—that were 

To ensure the searches for advertisements 

affordable—was extremely chal enging. 

were unbiased, project staff were provided 

randomized lists of housing search websites and 

During approximately 16 months of testing, 

randomized strings of numbers that determined 

we screened more than 341,000 online 

the order they would check websites and 

advertisements across the 5 study sites to 

screen advertisements. In some cases, to avoid 

find 8,735 advertisements for rental housing 

that appeared to be voucher eligible based 

31 GoSection8.com, which explicitly includes ads from landlords who accept vouchers, was excluded from the study. The site was excluded for two reasons: first, the research team was concerned that goSection8.com listings are not representative of the rental market as a whole; and second, exploratory ad searches of 10 ZIP Codes using goSection8.com suggested that the site was not an effective source for expanding our sample of ads in our testing sites.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

23

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

on the information listed in the ad. Tables 4.1 

potential y eligible advertisements totaled 

and 4.2, respectively, present the numbers of 

nearly two contacts to reach the landlord. 

advertisements screened and the effort needed 

The effort required to find housing for testing 

to identify advertisements for testing by site.

differed dramatical y across sites and for 

specific ZIP Codes. For example, the average 

Inquiring about these 8,735 advertisements, 

number of advertisements screened to identify 

confirming their eligibility and availability, and 

a unit that appeared to be eligible for testing 

then completing voucher acceptance tests 

ranged from more than 50 in Los Angeles and 

often required multiple contact attempts with 

Newark to less than 20 in Washington, D.C., 

landlords. Testers made 16,026 contact attempts 

to 11 in Philadelphia (Table 4.2). Once testers 

across the 5 sites by telephone, e-mail, or 

found an advertisement that appeared to be 

text to successful y complete 3,780 voucher 

eligible, Los Angeles and Newark required 

acceptance tests.

the most effort to contact the landlord and 

On average, across the 5 sites, we screened 

had the lowest rates of potential y eligible 

roughly 39 advertisements to identify what 

advertisements resulting in actual voucher 

appeared to be an eligible unit. The average 

acceptance tests (Table 4.2).

number of contact attempts per these 

Table 4.1: Advertisements Screened and Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed

Advertisements 

Potentially Voucher-

Total Provider Contacts 

Voucher Acceptance 

Test Site

Screened

Eligible Advertisements

and Attempts

Tests Completed

Fort Worth, TX

66,932

2,244

3,755

1,146

Los Angeles, CA

137,059

2,659

5,260

998

Newark, NJ

112,417

2,134

4,194

782

Philadelphia, PA

9,955

893

1,579

422

Washington, DC

15,152

805

1,238

432

Total

341,515

8,735

16,026

3,780

Table 4.2: Level of Effort To Find Voucher-Affordable Units

Average Number 

Average Number 

Number of Units Found 

Average Number of 

of Advertisements 

of Advertisements 

Eligible and Available 

Test Site

Contact Attempts per 

Screened per Completed 

Screened per Potentially 

per Potentially 

Potentially Eligible Ad

Voucher Acceptance 

Eligible Ad

Available Ad

Test

Fort Worth, TX

29.83

1.67

0.51

58.40

Los Angeles, CA

51.55

1.98

0.38

137.33

Newark, NJ

52.68

1.97

0.37

143.76

Philadelphia, PA

11.15

1.77

0.47

23.59

Washington, DC

18.82

1.54

0.54

35.07

All sites

39.10

1.83

0.43

90.35

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

24

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

The source of difficulty in Los Angeles and 

at the lower rent end of the housing market faced 

Newark differed greatly, although both sites 

high demand for affordable units and did not (or 

required considerable effort per available eligible 

could not) respond to all inquiries or prioritize 

advertisement. In Los Angeles, the difficulty 

responding to messages and returning calls.

finding suitable advertisements, contacting 

landlords, and identifying units for testing 

The effort required to find available units varied 

seemed to reflect a tight local rental market. The 

greatly across ZIP Codes. For example, across 

rental vacancy rate in Los Angeles at the time of 

the 5 sites we screened advertisements in 504 

testing was approximately 3.5 percent. For Los 

ZIP codes. In 74 of the ZIP Codes, we could 

Angeles, the combination of few eligible units 

not find any available units (Table 4.3). One-half 

available for testing and high voucher denial rates 

of the ZIP Codes without available units were 

was an obstacle for completing paired tests. 

in Los Angeles, where they represented about 

18 percent of all screened advertisements. We 

In Newark, the difficulty finding eligible units 

examined patterns in the data to see if these “no 

did not appear to be the result of market 

advertisements” ZIP Codes were more likely to 

tightness; the rental vacancy rate ranged from 

be low-poverty areas and found no evidence to 

approximately 4 to 9 percent at the time of 

support this hypothesis. 

testing. Instead, testing staff reported that in 

some ZIP Codes a few landlords controlled a 

Within ZIP Codes that had available units, the 

disproportionate number of units. Limits were 

number of advertisements we had to review to 

placed on how often testers cal ed or tested 

find a unit varied considerably (Table 4.4). In 

a particular landlord to minimize the risk that 

some sites, a small percentage of ZIP Codes 

landlords would discover they were being tested. 

required a significant effort to find available 

In practice, these limits meant that units might be 

units for testing. For example, in Fort Worth, 10 

removed from the potential study sample, and a 

percent of all available units identified were in 

more aggressive effort might be needed in some 

ZIP Codes that required screening at least 160 

ZIP Codes to find units for testing.

advertisements for each identified eligible unit. 

In contrast, one-half of the units identified in Fort 

It is not clear why higher numbers of contact 

Worth were in ZIP Codes that required screening 

attempts were needed in some sites to 

24 or fewer advertisements. In Los Angeles and 

reach landlords and to confirm available 

Newark, 10 percent of advertisements were in 

advertisements for testing, as Table 4.2 showed. 

ZIP codes that required us to screen 255 to 331 

Testing staff suggested that landlords operating 

advertisements to find one eligible unit, whereas 

Table 4.3: ZIP Codes With No Available Units by Testing Site

Number of 

Percent of 

Number of 

Number of ZIP Codes 

Advertisements 

Advertisements 

Advertisements 

With No Available Units

Reviewed in ZIP Codes 

Reviewed in ZIP Codes 

Reviewed

Without Available Units

Without Available Units

Fort Worth, TX

0

66,932

0

0.0

Los Angeles, CA

37

137,059

24,849

18.1

Newark, NJ

27

112,513

3,199

2.8

Philadelphia, PA

2

9,955

253

2.5

Washington, DC

8

15,171

712

4.7

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

25

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

Table 4.4: Deciles of ZIP Code-Level Advertisements Screened per Available Unit for Testing, by 

Testing Site

Test Site

Bottom 10%

Median

Top 10%

Total ZIP Codes

Fort Worth, TX

10

24

160

43

Los Angeles, CA

9

39

255

181

Newark, NJ

20

51

331

97

Philadelphia, PA

5

22

38

65

Washington, DC

5

14

46

44

Notes: Weighted to reflect distribution of available units. Includes only ZIP Codes with at least one unit available for testing.

one-half of the advertisements in those cities 

equivalent language or mentioned that vouchers 

required screening only 39 to 51 advertisements. 

were accepted.

In Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., available 

units were relatively easier to find.

Once testers determined that a unit was eligible 

for voucher acceptance testing, the team 

Our inability to find advertisements in some 

checked the advertisement to record whether it 

ZIP Codes—and the effort needed in others—

mentioned the HCV program, vouchers, voucher 

is important for two reasons. First, it shows 

holders, Section 8, or a PHA. The team recorded 

how difficult it may be to identify units in some 

whether the advertisement explicitly said 

places, and second, it il ustrates one way our 

vouchers were accepted or not, or included any 

testing process may differ from a typical voucher 

relevant comments about voucher assistance. 

search. Because our study design required a 

Of the 8,735 eligible advertisements, 969 

specific sampling process, our testers kept 

(roughly 11 percent) contained any mention of 

searching for units in these ZIP Codes even when 

vouchers (Table 4.5).

finding an available advertisement was extremely 

chal enging—likely far past when a voucher 

Overal , most (63 percent) advertisements 

holder might abandon efforts in that particular 

that stated any information about vouchers 

area. However, if a voucher holder were 

indicated the acceptance of Section 8 or 

interested in living in a specific neighborhood 

rental subsidies. About 25 percent stated that 

because of proximity to family, transportation, 

Section 8 was not accepted, and the remaining 

jobs, or high-quality schools, he or she might 

12 percent contained “other” information. The 

search with similar intensity and face the same 

“other” category includes advertisements in 

chal enges we found—a lack of available units.

which certain relevant key words or government 

assistance programs were mentioned, but 

Voucher Preferences in Rental 

a voucher policy was not explicitly noted. 

Examples include listing “TRA” (tenant-based 

Advertisements

rental assistance) or “government funds,” 

commenting about a PHA, or noting gosection8.

Although not the primary intention of the 

com (a website for landlords who accept 

advertisement sampling or testing process, 

vouchers). Many of these passive mentions of 

manual y searching for advertisements 

vouchers or housing assistance were likely for 

provided an opportunity to identify whether 

units that did accept vouchers. 

advertisements explicitly noted “no Section 8” or 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

26

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

Table 4.5: Voucher Policy Information Listed in Advertisement Text

Total 

Total Noting Voucher 

Other Related 

Test Site

Vouchers Denied

Vouchers Accepted

Advertisements

Policy

Comments

116

55

48

13

2,244

Fort Worth, TX

5.2%

2.5%

2.1%

0.6%

478

139

303

36

2,659

Los Angeles, CA

18.0%

5.2%

11.4%

1.4%

224

18

171

35

2,134

Newark, NJ

10.5%

0.8%

8.0%

1.6%

93

26

40

27

893

Philadelphia, PA

10.4%

2.9%

4.5%

3.0%

58

3

49

6

805

Washington, DC

7.2%

0.4%

6.1%

0.7%

969

241

611

117

8,735

Total

11.1%

2.8%

7.0%

1.3%

Percentage of advertisements noting voucher policy

24.9%

63.1%

12.1%

Conclusion

Our testing process did not exactly mirror a 

voucher holder’s search, but we gathered insight 

into the process and learned voucher-affordable 

units are difficult to find. Searching for housing 

is chal enging for voucher holders. Most must 

navigate the rental market on their own, searching 

for units that meet the program rental cap. This 

search requires scouring apartment listings and 

making multiple telephone calls to landlords to 

inquire about apartment availability. Across the 

five sites, we screened 39 advertisements for 

every unit we identified, and it took nearly two 

attempts to reach the landlord to inquire about the 

unit. Searches can become even more difficult 

for voucher holders looking for an apartment in 

a particular neighborhood. Our analysis of the 

rental advertisements in our sample reveals that 

landlords rarely state their preferences for Section 

8 or clearly state they do not accept vouchers. 

Of the advertisements we reviewed, a smal  

percentage (11 percent) included any information 

about vouchers— most of which noted that 

Section 8 or rental subsidies were accepted. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

27

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

28

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

CHAPTER 5: 

Tester: 

And I saw that the rent 

Do Landlords 

was $1,875 a month. 

Is that right, and does 

that include utilities?

Accept 

Landlord: 

Yes, it is $1,875 a month, 

Housing Choice 

and it only includes water. 

You will be responsible 

Vouchers?

for everything else, like 

gas and electricity. 

Tester: 

Okay, great. And do you 

Methodology 

accept vouchers for this unit?

Landlord: 

What do you mean by 

The voucher acceptance test was the first step 

vouchers? Like Section 8?

in the testing process and it measured whether 

landlords accepted vouchers. As discussed 

Tester: 

Yes, that’s right.

previously, screening rental advertisements 

and identifying eligible and available units for 

Landlord: 

Oh, yes. We accept those. 

testing was complex, but the acceptance test 

itself was straightforward. Once a tester verified 

The landlord’s response—yes, no, or in some 

a given unit was available and met voucher 

instances more equivocal responses—was the 

size and rent requirements, the tester revealed 

outcome measure of interest. We calculated 

that she had a voucher and asked whether the 

the landlord “denial rate” for each site as the 

landlord accepted vouchers. All acceptance 

proportion of landlords who told testers that 

testers were women who were perceived as 

vouchers were not accepted for an available 

White and portrayed voucher holders with one 

rental unit. Detailed address information was also 

to four young children or grandchildren. Box 5.1 

recorded for each test to match units to census 

provides an example of an exchange between a 

tracts and examine differences in denial rates by 

tester and landlord. 

low- and high-poverty tracts. 

Box 5.1: Sample Voucher 

Of the 3,780 voucher acceptance tests 

Acceptance Test

conducted in the five testing sites, 29 percent 

(1,083) were for units in neighborhoods with 

Tester: 

I’m cal ing about the ad for 

poverty rates below 10 percent (considered 

low-poverty areas) and 26 percent (999) were 

the apartment at [address]. 

in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 30 

Do you know if it’s still 

percent or higher (considered high-poverty 

available for rent?

areas). Roughly 38 percent (1,453) of the voucher 

Landlord: 

It is, and it will be available 

acceptance tests we conducted were in medium-

on August 15th. 

poverty tracts (10–30 percent). For the remaining 

7 percent of the tests, the unit address could not 

Tester: 

It’s two bedrooms, correct?

be assigned to a census tract. Table 5.1 shows 

the number of tests conducted by site and in 

Landlord: 

That’s correct.

low-, medium-, and high-poverty census tracts. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

29

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Table 5.1: Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed by Site and Poverty Rate

Table 5.2: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial Rates by Site

Washington, 

Test Results

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

Acceptance Tests

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

DC

All Sites

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Tests in low-poverty tracts  

%

26.2

30.6

33.6

13.7

36.3

28.7

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

(< 10%)

n

300

305

263

58

157

1,083

Denies vouchers

894

78.0

762

76.4

242

30.9

282

66.8

64

14.8

Tests in medium-poverty tracts  %

39.4

36.2

39.4

41.5

36.3

38.4

Accepts vouchers

132

11.5

148

14.8

342

43.7

99

23.5

306

70.8

(10–30%)

n

452

361

308

175

157

1,453

Accepts vouchers with 

82

7.2

48

4.8

92

11.8

14

3.3

42

9.7

conditions

Tests in high-poverty tracts  

%

30.4

26.0

18.2

38.2

20.6

26.4

Unsure of voucher 

(> 30%)

38

3.3

40

4.0

106

13.6

27

6.4

20

4.6

n

348

259

142

161

89

999

policy or other

%

4.0

7.3

8.8

6.6

6.7

6.5

Notes:  Accepts vouchers with conditions refers to landlords who accept vouchers only if specific additional conditions are met.  Other Tests that could not be geocoded

responses included that the public housing authority would not pay its portion for the unit, the landlord was awaiting inspection to n

46

73

69

28

29

245

determine eligibility, and the landlord did not know what vouchers were.

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total voucher acceptance tests

n

1,146

998

782

422

432

3,780

Voucher Discrimination Found in 

local source-of-income antidiscrimination laws, 

All Five Sites 

denial rates were substantial y lower compared 

with the sites that did not have protections. The 

Results from the voucher acceptance tests show 

city of Philadelphia has protections in place, 

clear evidence of outright denial of vouchers in 

but neighboring Bucks County, where we also 

each of the five sites, although denial rates varied 

conducted tests, does not.32 Los Angeles and 

widely. Denial rates were highest in Fort Worth 

Fort Worth do not have protections in place. 

and Los Angeles (78 and 76 percent, 

However, source-of-income protections were not 

respectively) and somewhat lower but still high in 

the only differences among the sites that could 

Philadelphia (67 percent). Rates were 

explain different outcomes. Sites also differed 

substantial y lower in Newark (31 percent) and 

in how they set their rental caps. Specifical y, 

Washington, D.C. (15 percent). Table 5.2 shows 

the lowest voucher denial rates corresponded 

the overall denial rates by site.

with areas that had higher FMR levels (50 

percent instead of 40 percent in Philadelphia and 

It is not possible to draw conclusions about why 

Washington, D.C.), as well as with the one site 

denial rates varied by site. It is notable, however, 

that had neighborhood-level payment standards 

that lower landlord denial rates correspond 

ranging from approximately 80 to 130 percent 

with places that have protections for voucher 

of FMR (Washington, D.C.). The housing market, 

holders. In Newark and Washington, D.C., where 

PHA performance, and other factors could also 

voucher holders are a protected class under 

affect landlord denial rates.33

32  About 11 percent (45 of 422) of the voucher acceptance tests conducted in the Philadelphia-area site were conducted in Bucks County. Denial rates were slightly higher in Bucks County compared with the city of Philadelphia (71 percent compared with 66 percent), and a larger share of the Bucks County tests resulted in “accepts with conditions” or “unsure” responses by landlords (12 percent compared with 9 percent). However, the sample of voucher acceptance tests in Bucks County was too small to glean meaningful inferences.

33  Properties using low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) financing are required to consider voucher holders as tenants. Because of the difficulty identifying individual LIHTC units during the acceptance test, it was not possible to exclude these units or properties from testing. In an effort to understand the extent to which LIHTC units were included in the sample and whether denial rates varied for LIHTC units, HUD linked the acceptance test addresses to the publicly available database of LIHTC property addresses. Because of differences in how acceptance tests and LIHTC addresses are geocoded, it was not possible to assess with certainty the share of acceptance tests conducted on units in LIHTC properties. Among the 3,780 acceptance tests, 120 addresses matched to LIHTC property addresses, but additional units may not have matched because of incompatible data formats. For the 120 tests that did match to LIHTC addresses, 72 percent of landlords stated they accepted vouchers, 13 percent denied vouchers, and 15 percent were unsure or accepted vouchers with conditions.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

30

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Table 5.1: Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed by Site and Poverty Rate

Table 5.2: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial Rates by Site

Washington, 

Test Results

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

Acceptance Tests

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

DC

All Sites

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Tests in low-poverty tracts  

%

26.2

30.6

33.6

13.7

36.3

28.7

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

(< 10%)

n

300

305

263

58

157

1,083

Denies vouchers

894

78.0

762

76.4

242

30.9

282

66.8

64

14.8

Tests in medium-poverty tracts  %

39.4

36.2

39.4

41.5

36.3

38.4

Accepts vouchers

132

11.5

148

14.8

342

43.7

99

23.5

306

70.8

(10–30%)

n

452

361

308

175

157

1,453

Accepts vouchers with 

82

7.2

48

4.8

92

11.8

14

3.3

42

9.7

conditions

Tests in high-poverty tracts  

%

30.4

26.0

18.2

38.2

20.6

26.4

Unsure of voucher 

(> 30%)

38

3.3

40

4.0

106

13.6

27

6.4

20

4.6

n

348

259

142

161

89

999

policy or other

%

4.0

7.3

8.8

6.6

6.7

6.5

Notes:  Accepts vouchers with conditions refers to landlords who accept vouchers only if specific additional conditions are met.  Other Tests that could not be geocoded

responses included that the public housing authority would not pay its portion for the unit, the landlord was awaiting inspection to n

46

73

69

28

29

245

determine eligibility, and the landlord did not know what vouchers were.

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total voucher acceptance tests

n

1,146

998

782

422

432

3,780

Across the five sites, between 8 and 25 percent 

Box 5.2: Sample “Unsure” and 

Voucher Discrimination Found in 

of the voucher acceptance tests resulted in a 

“Accepts With Conditions” Voucher 

landlord stating vouchers were accepted only 

All Five Sites 

Acceptance Test Narratives

under certain conditions, or that the landlord 

was unsure of the voucher acceptance policy.34 

Results from the voucher acceptance tests show 

Most landlords told testers clearly whether they 

For some tests recorded as “unsure,” landlords 

clear evidence of outright denial of vouchers in 

accepted vouchers. In some cases, however, 

stated the tester should proceed with the 

each of the five sites, although denial rates varied 

landlords were either unsure or stated they 

conversation and potential application; in other 

widely. Denial rates were highest in Fort Worth 

would only take vouchers in certain situations.

cases, the landlord promised to follow up with 

and Los Angeles (78 and 76 percent, 

a response but did not provide one after 24 

respectively) and somewhat lower but still high in 

Landlord is unsure of voucher policy

hours, could not be reached to clarify, or later 

Philadelphia (67 percent). Rates were 

responded that the unit was no longer available. 

Newark, NJ: I asked [the landlord] if he 

substantial y lower in Newark (31 percent) and 

“Accepts with conditions” was recorded 

accepted vouchers for this unit and he was 

Washington, D.C. (15 percent). Table 5.2 shows 

whenever a landlord suggested vouchers would 

not sure. [He] said he would ask the landlord 

the overall denial rates by site.

be accepted only under certain circumstances; 

and call me back. [He] did not call me back.

It is not possible to draw conclusions about why 

for example, if the voucher was (or was not) from 

Washington, DC: I then asked if he would 

denial rates varied by site. It is notable, however, 

a particular PHA, if the voucher was for a certain 

accept vouchers and he said he wasn’t sure if 

that lower landlord denial rates correspond 

unit size, if the voucher covered a certain amount 

the owner would take them. He said he would 

with places that have protections for voucher 

of the rent, or if other requirements of tenancy 

have to check and said he would get back 

holders. In Newark and Washington, D.C., where 

(such as a certain credit score) were met. See 

to me. He did not get my name or number.

voucher holders are a protected class under 

Box 5.2 for examples of these two responses 

Los Angeles, CA: When I asked about 

from landlords in the voucher acceptance test. 

housing voucher acceptance, he clarified 

32  About 11 percent (45 of 422) of the voucher acceptance tests conducted in the Philadelphia-area site were conducted in Bucks County. Denial rates were that I meant Section 8, and then he admitted 

slightly higher in Bucks County compared with the city of Philadelphia (71 percent compared with 66 percent), and a larger share of the Bucks County tests he didn’t know much about the program. 

resulted in “accepts with conditions” or “unsure” responses by landlords (12 percent compared with 9 percent). However, the sample of voucher acceptance I asked if he would be willing to accept it, 

tests in Bucks County was too small to glean meaningful inferences.

33  Properties using low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) financing are required to consider voucher holders as tenants. Because of the difficulty identifying and he said that I should come by to view 

individual LIHTC units during the acceptance test, it was not possible to exclude these units or properties from testing. In an effort to understand the extent to the unit and he would think about it after.

which LIHTC units were included in the sample and whether denial rates varied for LIHTC units, HUD linked the acceptance test addresses to the publicly available database of LIHTC property addresses. Because of differences in how acceptance tests and LIHTC addresses are geocoded, it was not possible to assess with 34 

certainty the share of acceptance tests conducted on units in LIHTC properties. Among the 3,780 acceptance tests, 120 addresses matched to LIHTC property A small number of “other” responses were also recorded and included with the “unsure” responses. “Other” responses include, for example, somewhat addresses, but additional units may not have matched because of incompatible data formats. For the 120 tests that did match to LIHTC addresses, 72 percent of ambiguous responses, such as the landlords stating they were waiting for results of a unit inspection, that the PHA would not pay the voucher, or that they landlords stated they accepted vouchers, 13 percent denied vouchers, and 15 percent were unsure or accepted vouchers with conditions.

did not know what vouchers were.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

31

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Landlord accepts vouchers with conditions

where local laws prevent landlords from denying 

Table 5.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Denial Rates by Site and Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty 

Fort Worth, TX:

voucher holders outright.

 I asked [the landlord] if 

Census Tracts

she accepted vouchers and she said [PHA 

name] vouchers only. She added tenants 

Voucher Denials More Common 

Denial Rates per Census Tract

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

must make 2.5 times the rent amount.

in Low-Poverty Areas

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

Newark, NJ: I asked [the landlord] if she 

Landlords were more likely to deny voucher 

Voucher denial rate (%)

78.0

76.4

30.9

66.8

14.8

accepted vouchers for this unit and she said, 

holders in low-poverty areas compared with 

Standard error (%)

1.2

1.3

1.7

2.3

1.7

yes, that she accepts anything, but I need to 

high-poverty areas, particularly in the sites with 

Average voucher denial rates 

85.0

81.5

37.7

82.5

16.2

have good credit of 650 or more. She asked me 

in low-poverty areas (%)

the highest voucher denial rates. In four of the 

if my credit was 650 or more and I said yes.

five sites (all but Washington, D.C.), the voucher 

Standard error (%)

2.1

2.3

3.0

5.1

3.0

Philadelphia, PA: I then asked if they accept 

denial rates were substantial y higher for low-

Average voucher denial rates 

81.1

80.7

28.8

70.9

15.0

in medium-poverty areas (%)

vouchers. He then asked if I was talking about 

poverty census tracts than for high-poverty 

Section 8. I said yes. He asked how many 

Standard error (%)

1.8

2.1

2.6

3.4

2.8

tracts. The differences in denial rates between 

bedrooms my voucher is for. I said I have a 

low- and high-poverty areas were statistical y 

Average voucher denial rates 

67.2

66.0

26.1

55.3

15.7

in high-poverty areas (%)

three-bedroom voucher. He then stated that 

significant. Table 5.3 shows the results of the 

Standard error (%)

2.5

2.9

3.7

3.9

3.9

they will accept three-bedroom Section 8. 

acceptance tests by neighborhood poverty rate 

Statistical significance

***

***

**

***

for low- and high-poverty areas.

**  p < 0.05. ***  p < 0.01.

The “unsure” and “accepts with conditions” 

Specifical y, in those four sites, denial rates were 

Note: Significance tests measured the difference in denial rates in low-poverty tracts compared with denial rates in high-poverty tracts. 

responses likely represent some combination 

11 to 27 percentage points higher in low-poverty 

of landlords or property managers who were 

tracts compared with high-poverty tracts in 

genuinely unsure of their voucher policy, who 

the same sites. For example, in Newark, the 

accepted with some conditions but placed those 

denial rate in low-poverty tracts was 38 percent 

conditions on all apartment seekers, who were 

compared with 26 percent in high-poverty 

familiar with the program and had no intention 

tracts. The difference between low- and high-

of accepting voucher holders, and who place 

poverty tracts was largest in Philadelphia, which 

conditions on voucher holders they do not place 

had a denial rate of 83 percent in low-poverty 

on other apartment seekers.

tracts compared with 55 percent in high-poverty 

It is noteworthy that the “unsure” and “accepts 

tracts. In Washington, D.C., however, denial 

with conditions” responses were far more 

rates were approximately the same in low- and 

common in Newark (about 25 percent) and 

high-poverty tracts.

Washington, D.C. (about 14 percent), which had 

Overal , denial rates were highest—between 82 

the lowest denial rates and were the sites entirely 

and 85 percent—in low-poverty tracts in Los 

covered by state or local source–of-income 

Angeles, Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. Denial 

protections. Some evidence from previous 

rates were lowest—about 16 percent—in high-

smal er scale testing studies in Washington, 

poverty tracts in Washington, D.C.

D.C., suggests denial rates have declined 

since source–of-income protections were 

enacted in 2005; testing in 2011 documented 

Landlord Comments on 

a 17-percentage-point decrease (from 45 to 28 

Acceptance or Denial

percent) in voucher denials from 2005 testing 

(Equal Rights Center, 2005, 2011). The overall 

While conducting voucher acceptance tests, the 

denial rates in these sites may be conservative 

testers wrote brief narrative summaries of their 

estimates, and the more ambiguous responses 

interactions with landlords in addition to fil ing out 

could conceal landlord discrimination in places 

forms recording test outcomes. These data were 

primarily collected for quality control to verify the 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

32

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

where local laws prevent landlords from denying 

Table 5.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Denial Rates by Site and Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty 

voucher holders outright.

Census Tracts

Voucher Denials More Common 

Denial Rates per Census Tract

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

in Low-Poverty Areas

Total tests

1,146

998

782

422

432

Landlords were more likely to deny voucher 

Voucher denial rate (%)

78.0

76.4

30.9

66.8

14.8

holders in low-poverty areas compared with 

Standard error (%)

1.2

1.3

1.7

2.3

1.7

high-poverty areas, particularly in the sites with 

Average voucher denial rates 

85.0

81.5

37.7

82.5

16.2

in low-poverty areas (%)

the highest voucher denial rates. In four of the 

five sites (all but Washington, D.C.), the voucher 

Standard error (%)

2.1

2.3

3.0

5.1

3.0

denial rates were substantial y higher for low-

Average voucher denial rates 

81.1

80.7

28.8

70.9

15.0

in medium-poverty areas (%)

poverty census tracts than for high-poverty 

Standard error (%)

1.8

2.1

2.6

3.4

2.8

tracts. The differences in denial rates between 

low- and high-poverty areas were statistical y 

Average voucher denial rates 

67.2

66.0

26.1

55.3

15.7

in high-poverty areas (%)

significant. Table 5.3 shows the results of the 

Standard error (%)

2.5

2.9

3.7

3.9

3.9

acceptance tests by neighborhood poverty rate 

Statistical significance

***

***

**

***

for low- and high-poverty areas.

**  p < 0.05. ***  p < 0.01.

Specifical y, in those four sites, denial rates were 

Note: Significance tests measured the difference in denial rates in low-poverty tracts compared with denial rates in high-poverty tracts. 

11 to 27 percentage points higher in low-poverty 

tracts compared with high-poverty tracts in 

information recorded on test forms. However, 

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers 

the same sites. For example, in Newark, the 

the descriptions also offer insights into landlord 

denial rate in low-poverty tracts was 38 percent 

Are More Likely To Comment

behavior and voucher testers’ experience 

compared with 26 percent in high-poverty 

searching for housing. It is important to note that 

Whether a landlord made a comment usual y 

tracts. The difference between low- and high-

these narratives reflect unsolicited comments 

varied depending on whether he or she accepted 

poverty tracts was largest in Philadelphia, which 

the landlords made during the testing process. 

vouchers (Table 5.5). Landlords who did not 

had a denial rate of 83 percent in low-poverty 

After testers asked landlords if they accepted 

accept vouchers were less likely to provide 

tracts compared with 55 percent in high-poverty 

vouchers, testers recorded the answers and any 

additional comments compared with those who 

tracts. In Washington, D.C., however, denial 

additional comments. The testers did not ask 

accepted vouchers. Specifical y, 77 percent of 

rates were approximately the same in low- and 

landlords to elaborate on their answers by asking 

all landlords who did not accept vouchers did 

high-poverty tracts.

why they did not accept vouchers. For this 

not make any additional comments compared 

Overal , denial rates were highest—between 82 

qualitative analysis, we coded these narratives 

with about 53 percent of all landlords who 

and 85 percent—in low-poverty tracts in Los 

using predefined codes and subcodes to identify 

accepted vouchers. Landlords who did accept 

Angeles, Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. Denial 

and sort key themes and patterns.35

vouchers were more likely to ask questions or to 

rates were lowest—about 16 percent—in high-

be more equivocal than landlords who did not 

In more than one-half (60 percent) of the 

poverty tracts in Washington, D.C.

accept vouchers in all the pilot sites except for 

voucher acceptance tests, landlords did 

Washington, D.C. This contrast was higher in Los 

not make any additional comments beyond 

Landlord Comments on 

Angeles, where about 83 percent of landlords 

answering the voucher testers’ questions. During 

who did not accept vouchers (630 of 762) made 

Acceptance or Denial

the remaining 40 percent of voucher acceptance 

no additional comments compared with roughly 

tests, landlords offered some unsolicited 

45 percent who did accept them (67 of 148), 

While conducting voucher acceptance tests, the 

comment. Table 5.4 shows the frequency of 

and in Fort Worth, where roughly 79 percent of 

testers wrote brief narrative summaries of their 

landlord comments.

landlords who did not accept vouchers (684 of 

interactions with landlords in addition to fil ing out 

894) made no additional comments compared 

forms recording test outcomes. These data were 

primarily collected for quality control to verify the 

35  See appendix F for qualitative codes and subcodes.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

33

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Table 5.4: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Comments

with about 35 percent who did accept them (46 

of 132). In Washington, D.C., landlords who did 

not accept vouchers were slightly less likely to 

Acceptance Tests

n

%

make an additional comment than a landlord who 

No additional comments

2,268

60.0

did accept vouchers (about 67 percent to about 

At least one additional comment

1,512

40.0

69 percent).

    One additional comment

922

24.4

    Two additional comments

396

10.5

    More than two additional comments

194

5.1

Landlords Who Do Not Accept 

Total

3,780

100.0

Vouchers 

As noted previously, in most tests (1,727 of 2,244) 

Table 5.5: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by Site

in which landlords did not accept vouchers, the 

landlord did not have any additional comments 

Voucher 

Landlord 

Washington, 

(Table 5.6). We found that a subset of these 

All Sites

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

Response 

Comment

DC

landlords would abruptly end the call after 

No additional 

2,268

727

681

334

265

261

stating their voucher policy. In tests with an 

comment

60.0%

63.4%

68.2%

42.7%

62.8%

60.4%

additional comment, however, we found that 

Additional 

1,512

419

317

448

157

171

landlords expressed concerns about the voucher 

All

comment

40.0%

36.6%

31.8%

57.3%

37.2%

39.6%

holder and vouchers or told the tester that the 

3,780

1,146

998

782

422

432

apartment would not qualify to accept vouchers.

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Landlord Abruptly Ended the Call

No additional 

1,727

684

630

160

210

43

comment

77.0%

76.5%

82.7%

66.1%

74.5%

67.2%

In a few tests with no additional comment, 

Does not 

517

210

132

82

72

21

testers encountered landlords who hung up 

Additional 

accept 

comment

23.0%

23.5%

17.3%

33.9%

25.5%

32.8%

the telephone immediately after voucher denial. 

vouchers

Landlords who did not accept vouchers ended 

2,244

894

762

242

282

64

Total

the call abruptly in slightly more than 3 percent of 

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

the tests (69 tests). Most of these tests occurred 

No additional 

0

0

0

0

0

0

in Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia. 

comment

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Testers who encountered such landlords 

Accepts 

Additional 

278

82

48

92

14

42

vouchers with 

recorded the following interactions.

comment

conditions

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

278

82

48

92

14

42

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

No additional 

69

8

11

21

18

11

Table 5.6: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

comment

29.9%

21.1%

27.5%

19.8%

66.7%

55.0%

Response—Does Not Accept Vouchers

Unsure of 

voucher 

Additional 

162

30

29

85

9

9

acceptance or  comment

70.1%

78.9%

72.5%

80.2%

33.3%

45.0%

Acceptance Tests

n

Percent (%)

other

231

38

40

106

27

20

Total tests in which landlord does not accept vouchers

Total

2,244

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

No additional comment

1,727

77.0

No additional 

541

46

67

166

52

210

Landlord abruptly ended the call

69

3.1

comment

52.7%

34.8%

45.3%

48.5%

52.5%

68.6%

Additional comment

517

23.0

Accepts 

Additional 

486

86

81

176

47

96

Landlord expressed concerns about vouchers and voucher holders

101

4.5

vouchers 

comment

47.3%

65.2%

54.7%

51.5%

47.5%

31.4%

Landlord could not accept vouchers

86

3.8

1,027

132

148

342

99

306

Landlord irregularly accepted vouchers or accepted vouchers in the past

108

4.8

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

34

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Table 5.4: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Comments

with about 35 percent who did accept them (46 

I cal ed and spoke with the landlord about 

of 132). In Washington, D.C., landlords who did 

[the available unit]. She said that it was 

not accept vouchers were slightly less likely to 

still available for $1,700 per month. She 

Acceptance Tests

n

%

make an additional comment than a landlord who 

said that you have to call her and make 

No additional comments

2,268

60.0

did accept vouchers (about 67 percent to about 

an appointment so she can meet you 

At least one additional comment

1,512

40.0

69 percent).

at the property. I asked if she accepted 

    One additional comment

922

24.4

vouchers and she said they do not and 

    Two additional comments

396

10.5

    More than two additional comments

194

5.1

Landlords Who Do Not Accept 

then hung up on me.—Los Angeles, CA

Total

3,780

100.0

Vouchers 

I cal ed and spoke to [the landlord], and 

she confirmed the unit information. I 

As noted previously, in most tests (1,727 of 2,244) 

asked her if utilities were included and 

Table 5.5: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by Site

in which landlords did not accept vouchers, the 

she said no. I asked her if she accepted 

landlord did not have any additional comments 

vouchers and she said no. I asked if 

Voucher 

Landlord 

Washington, 

(Table 5.6). We found that a subset of these 

All Sites

Fort Worth

Los Angeles

Newark

Philadelphia

she had anything else and she hung up 

Response 

Comment

DC

landlords would abruptly end the call after 

without answering.—Newark, NJ

No additional 

2,268

727

681

334

265

261

stating their voucher policy. In tests with an 

comment

60.0%

63.4%

68.2%

42.7%

62.8%

60.4%

additional comment, however, we found that 

I cal ed and spoke with [the receptionist], 

Additional 

1,512

419

317

448

157

171

landlords expressed concerns about the voucher 

who told me to contact this number to 

All

comment

40.0%

36.6%

31.8%

57.3%

37.2%

39.6%

holder and vouchers or told the tester that the 

reach [the leasing landlord]. [He] picked up 

3,780

1,146

998

782

422

432

apartment would not qualify to accept vouchers.

and confirmed the unit information. I asked 

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

if he accepted vouchers, and he asked if 

Landlord Abruptly Ended the Call

I meant Section 8. I said that I did, and he 

No additional 

1,727

684

630

160

210

43

comment

77.0%

76.5%

82.7%

66.1%

74.5%

67.2%

In a few tests with no additional comment, 

said that they didn’t accept Section 8, and 

Does not 

517

210

132

82

72

21

testers encountered landlords who hung up 

he hung up.—Philadelphia, PA

Additional 

accept 

comment

23.0%

23.5%

17.3%

33.9%

25.5%

32.8%

the telephone immediately after voucher denial. 

vouchers

Landlord Expressed Concerns About 

Landlords who did not accept vouchers ended 

2,244

894

762

242

282

64

Total

Vouchers and Voucher Holders

the call abruptly in slightly more than 3 percent of 

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

the tests (69 tests). Most of these tests occurred 

0

0

0

0

0

0

We found that 4.5 percent (101 tests) of 

No additional 

in Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia. 

comment

landlords who did not accept vouchers made 

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Testers who encountered such landlords 

Accepts 

a negative comment or expressed concern 

Additional 

278

82

48

92

14

42

vouchers with 

recorded the following interactions.

about the HCV program or voucher holders. 

comment

conditions

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

278

82

48

92

14

42

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

No additional 

69

8

11

21

18

11

Table 5.6: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

comment

29.9%

21.1%

27.5%

19.8%

66.7%

55.0%

Response—Does Not Accept Vouchers

Unsure of 

voucher 

Additional 

162

30

29

85

9

9

acceptance or  comment

70.1%

78.9%

72.5%

80.2%

33.3%

45.0%

Acceptance Tests

n

Percent (%)

other

231

38

40

106

27

20

Total tests in which landlord does not accept vouchers

Total

2,244

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

No additional comment

1,727

77.0

No additional 

541

46

67

166

52

210

Landlord abruptly ended the call

69

3.1

comment

52.7%

34.8%

45.3%

48.5%

52.5%

68.6%

Additional comment

517

23.0

Accepts 

Additional 

486

86

81

176

47

96

Landlord expressed concerns about vouchers and voucher holders

101

4.5

vouchers 

comment

47.3%

65.2%

54.7%

51.5%

47.5%

31.4%

Landlord could not accept vouchers

86

3.8

1,027

132

148

342

99

306

Landlord irregularly accepted vouchers or accepted vouchers in the past

108

4.8

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

35

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Concerns included the number of people 

I asked her if they accepted vouchers and 

who would be living or staying in the home, 

he asked if I meant Section 8. I said that 

whether rent payments would be delayed, and 

I did and he told me that he didn’t think 

whether property damage would occur. These 

that owner did anymore. He told me that 

concerns were expressed in one of two ways. 

he didn’t have anything against vouchers, 

The landlord either made a comment about the 

but that the owner had a real y bad 

HCV program (for example, “Section 8 is too 

experience with one tenant and it soured 

much work”) or about the voucher holders (for 

him on the program. He said that “it was 

example, “Voucher holders are bad tenants”). 

like when you get a tenant with a bad dog 

In 74 of these tests, landlords expressed 

and they never want dogs again. Not that 

concerns about the HCV program. These 

you’re a dog.”—Newark, NJ

concerns were most prevalent in Los Angeles 

and Newark. The following are examples of 

Landlord Could Not Accept Vouchers

these conversations.

In some cases, a landlord expressed that 

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

vouchers were not accepted, because he or she 

vouchers and he said no because it 

was not set up to participate in the program or 

gives him a headache. I asked him if he 

the apartment would not pass inspection. This 

had other available units nearby that 

type of comment occurred in 3.8 percent (86 

would work for me and he said no.—Los 

tests) of the tests in which landlords did not 

Angeles, CA

accept vouchers. The following are typical of 

those conversations.

I cal ed [him] back [after the landlord 

did not call back] and was told that [he] 

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

remembered me and that he hadn’t cal ed 

accepted for it. He asked what kind I 

me back because the owner didn’t take 

meant. I said Section 8, Bucks County. 

vouchers. He said that she said that she 

He then said, “No, we’re not certified.” I 

had had a bad experience with Section 

asked if he had any other properties that 

8 and was unwil ing to go through it 

might work for me, and he said, “No, not 

again.—Newark, NJ

for Section 8.”—Philadelphia, PA

Although landlords expressing concerns 

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

with voucher holders was less prevalent—

accepted for the place. He began, 

occurring in 27 tests with landlords who did 

“Unfortunately,” and then paused for a 

not accept vouchers—such interactions are 

few seconds before saying, “That place 

still important to discuss for two reasons. 

probably wouldn’t pass.” He asked 

They provide context for voucher holders’ 

where my voucher was from, “Tarrant 

experiences, and most took place in Newark 

County?” I said, “Fort Worth.” He said, 

(18 of 27), where statewide protections for 

“The inspection is so rigid, the house I live 

voucher holders exist. The following are 

in probably wouldn’t pass. It’s just not—it 

examples of these conversations.

wouldn’t be easy for [the process to be 

completed or you to move in].” I asked 

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

if he had any other properties for me to 

vouchers. He said they used to but didn’t 

consider, and he said none were available 

anymore because all the voucher holders 

that would pass their inspection.—Fort 

were drug dealers so they had to run 

Worth, TX

them out of the building.—Newark, NJ

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

36

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Landlord Irregularly Accepted 

to accept vouchers and no longer did. Most of 

Vouchers or Accepted Vouchers in the 

these tests (24 of the 51) occurred in Fort Worth. 

Past

Most of these landlords did not give a reason 

for discontinuing their voucher acceptance. 

We found that a subset of landlords (108 tests, 

However, a few landlords provided a reason, 

or 4.8 percent of tests in which vouchers 

such as having a negative experience with 

were not accepted) either irregularly accepted 

voucher holders or the housing authority.

vouchers or accepted vouchers in the past. In 

57 of those tests, landlords told testers that 

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

they sometimes accepted vouchers but were 

accepted for the upcoming unit. He asked 

not doing so currently. Landlords gave various 

if I was referring to Arlington County 

reasons for not currently accepting vouchers, 

vouchers, and once I confirmed, he said no. 

including that the building had reached capacity 

I asked if he had any other two bedrooms I 

or that they could not accept vouchers for the 

could then consider, and he said, “No, we 

advertised unit.

don’t take vouchers at al . We decided to 

discontinue that …”—Fort Worth, TX

Landlords who said that they were currently 

at their capacity for vouchers tended to either 

I asked if she had other available units 

simply state that they were at capacity or cite 

nearby that would work for me and she 

a specific percentage of housing that could be 

said no. She told me most of LA City 

occupied by voucher holders.

stopped accepting vouchers.—Los 

Angeles, CA

I asked her if she accepted vouchers, and 

she said yes, however, they are currently 

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

at capacity.—Fort Worth, TX

vouchers and he said no. I asked him if 

he had other units available that would 

I asked the agent if he accepted 

work for me. He said they do not accept 

vouchers and he said no. He said only 

vouchers anymore because the housing 

about 10 percent of their rentals accept 

department was too hard to work with.—

vouchers.—Los Angeles, CA

Fort Worth, TX

Landlords who said that they were not able 

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers With 

to accept vouchers for a specific unit usual y 

Conditions

referenced the inspection requirements or the 

time required complete the inspection.

As discussed previously in this chapter, we found 

that a number of landlords accepted vouchers, as 

I asked [the landlord] if he accepted 

long as certain conditions were met (278 tests); 

vouchers for this unit and he said he 

these responses were recorded as “accepts 

usual y does accept vouchers, but not for 

with conditions” (Table 5.7). By examining these 

this unit.—Philadelphia, PA

narratives, we gained a greater understanding of 

She told me that she had contacted the 

the requirements placed on voucher holders—

owner, and while the owner normal y 

although landlords may place these conditions on 

takes Section 8, this unit wouldn’t pass 

all renters. In most cases, conditions surrounded 

the mandatory inspection. She said they 

how much the voucher holder made (and whether 

didn’t have anything else.—Newark, NJ

she had a job), what her credit score was, how 

much the voucher was for, and which PHA was 

Additional y, a group of landlords who did not 

responsible for administering the voucher. Often 

accept vouchers (51 tests) stated that they used 

landlords would set more than one condition, 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

37

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Table 5.7: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Accepts Vouchers With Conditions

Acceptance Tests

n

Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords accept vouchers with conditions

278

No additional comment

0

0.0

Additional comment

278

100.0

Landlord set work or income requirement

76

27.3

Landlord set credit requirement

59

21.2

Landlord set requirement on the voucher amount

66

23.7

Landlord set requirement on public housing authority management

77

27.7

Landlord set requirement on Housing Choice Voucher program

20

7.2

particularly if those conditions were about the 

Sometimes voucher holders could fulfill these 

renter’s income or the voucher (for example, the 

conditions—as in the previous example in Fort 

voucher holder must make double the rent, and 

Worth. Sometimes they could not. Cases in 

the voucher must be from a certain PHA). We 

which the landlord could be denying the voucher 

also found that some of these conditions are 

holder without explicitly doing so include the 

not achievable for voucher holders—particularly 

following examples. 

those pertaining to income—and may actual y 

be a way to screen out voucher holders without 

I asked the landlord if she accepted 

explicitly denying their voucher. 

vouchers and she said yes, but I also 

need to meet other qualifications. I asked 

Landlord Sets Work or Income 

what those qualifications were. She said 

Requirement

I have to make 3.5 times the rent.—Fort 

Worth, TX

About 27 percent (76 of 278) tests had conditions 

related to voucher holders, including requiring 

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

that a voucher holder be employed (for example, 

vouchers for this unit and she said yes, 

must have a job, must provide pay check stubs 

but my total annual income including the 

for a certain number of weeks) or make at least 

vouchers needs to be at least $60,000.—

a certain amount each year (for example, two 

Newark, NJ

times the rent, $40,000 annual y). The following 

I asked her if she accepted vouchers 

are examples of these conditions.

and she said they do, but I would have 

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

to qualify for the apartment on my own 

vouchers and she said Tarrant County 

without considering the voucher.—

vouchers only. She added tenants must 

Washington, D.C.

make 2.5 times the rent amount.—Fort 

In both the first and second example, it is not 

Worth, TX

likely that the voucher holder would be able 

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

to meet the landlord’s income requirement. 

vouchers and he said yes, as long as my 

Specifical y, in the first example, the rent for 

annual income is over the minimum of 

the apartment was set at $885 a month, so the 

$30,535.—Washington D.C.

tester needed an income of $37,170 a year to 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

38

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

qualify. In the paired test (discussed in more 

I asked about vouchers and he said as 

detail in chapter 6), neither the voucher nor the 

long as I have good credit and a job, he’ll 

control tester would have been eligible for the 

take them.—Washington, D.C.

apartment. Because of several factors, testers 

with and without a voucher were assigned 

Landlord Sets Voucher Requirements

incomes that would be within the voucher-

Landlords who placed requirements on 

eligible income for each study site, plus the 

vouchers, as opposed to voucher holders, 

approximate annual value of the voucher 

usual y did so through one of three 

subsidy.36 The voucher tester for this apartment 

mechanisms—the voucher amount, PHA 

would have had a family of three and an annual 

management, or program requirements. 

income of roughly $27,000, which included both 

her income from work and the annual amount 

Voucher amount.  Roughly one-fourth of the 

of her voucher, and the control tester would 

landlord conditions were related to the voucher 

also have had a family of three and an income 

amount (66 of 278 tests). This type of comment 

of $26,995; both are well below the required 

was most common in Newark. These conditions 

amount. In the third example, the landlord is 

included requirements that the voucher be for a 

decreasing the chance that the voucher holder 

specific amount (for example, at least $1,250) or 

would be able to qualify by ignoring a significant 

that the voucher cover the full amount of rent. 

portion of her monthly income.

It was not always clear whether the landlord 

was including the voucher holder’s contribution 

Landlord Sets Credit Requirement

when requiring that the voucher cover “the ful  

About 21 percent of the landlords who accepted 

amount of rent.” The following are examples of 

with conditions (59 out of 278) set requirements 

these conditions.

around the voucher holder’s credit score, 

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

whether they were looking for “good” credit 

vouchers for this unit. [She] said voucher 

general y or a specific number. The former 

approval depends on the rent amount of 

enabled the landlord more discretion when 

the voucher. She said my voucher would 

deciding whether to accept a voucher holder’s 

need to be at least $1,575.—Fort Worth, TX

application. Some examples recorded by testers 

are as follows.

I asked him if he took vouchers, and he 

said yes, as long as it covered the rent.—

I asked [the landlord] if he takes vouchers 

Newark, NJ

for this unit. He said he does because 

they are not al owed to turn anyone away, 

In a few cases, landlords set the condition that 

but the owner requires a good credit 

they would accept the voucher, but that they 

score and a steady income. [He] asked 

would increase the rent to the full amount the 

me how my credit was and I said good. 

voucher al owed—essential y raising the rent they 

He said my credit needs to be in the 700s 

would receive but not affecting the portion the 

and I need to make four times the rent.—

voucher holder would pay. 

Newark, NJ

I asked him if they took housing vouchers 

I asked the landlord if they accepted 

and he said that they did. He corrected 

vouchers and she said yes, but my credit 

himself and said that he did depending on 

score must be 650 and my income must 

where my voucher was from. I said that it 

be twice the rent amount.—Newark, NJ

was a state voucher and he said that they 

36  See appendix A for a description for the counterfactual income process.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

39

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

would take it. He asked me how much my 

I asked if they accepted vouchers at this 

voucher was for and I said that it was up 

location and she asked where mine was 

to $1,700. He told me that, in that case, 

from. I told her Fort Worth and she said 

he would set my rent at $1,690 and have 

they are not looking to work with Fort 

it include all of the utilities so he could get 

Worth since they are such a pain. They 

more money from the housing authority.—

are wil ing to work with Tarrant County 

Newark, NJ

though since they are “much easier to 

deal with.”—Fort Worth, TX

PHA management.  About 28 percent of the 

landlords (77 of 278 tests) stated that they 

I asked if they accepted vouchers and 

accepted vouchers only from a certain PHA. 

she said that everyone in the state was 

This type of comment was most prevalent in 

required to accept them, but that this 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles; more than one-

property wasn’t inspected because of the 

half of the landlords in each site that accepted 

complicated process in Orange. I asked 

vouchers conditional y only accepted vouchers 

again if that meant she would accept 

from a specific PHA (42 of 82 in Fort Worth and 

vouchers or not and she repeated that 

28 of 48 in Los Angeles). This preference was 

everyone in the state was required to 

also evident in Newark, although on a smal er 

accept vouchers, but that the property 

scale (7 of 92 tests). The following are examples 

wasn’t inspected or cleared for vouchers. 

of these conditions.

She told me that she didn’t have any 

available but that if she did and if I 

I asked if they accepted housing vouchers 

needed an apartment in another town, 

and she asked which kind. I told her Fort 

like Elizabeth, the process would be 

Worth Section 8 and she said that they 

simple and she would be able to take 

only accepted Tarrant County. I asked 

them easily.—Newark, NJ

about other units that would work and 

she said none of their units accepted Fort 

Program requirements. In about 7 percent of 

Worth housing.—Fort Worth, TX

tests with landlords who accepted vouchers with 

conditions (20 of 278 tests), landlords expressed 

I asked the landlord if she accepted 

concern about one of the program requirements 

vouchers and she said yes as long as 

(for example, inspections, approval process) and 

it covers the rent and it is a Fort Worth 

set their condition to help mitigate that concern. 

voucher.—Fort Worth, TX

For example, if a landlord was concerned about 

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

the inspection time, he or she would stipulate 

accepted for it. He asked if I meant 

that the inspection would need to be completed 

Section 8, and I said yes. He said that 

by a certain time for the voucher to be accepted.

it depends on which housing authority 

I then asked if they accept vouchers. She 

my voucher is from and asked me where 

said they do accept vouchers but in order 

mine is from. I said LA County, and he 

to see the unit, voucher holders need 

told me that they are not accepting LA 

to give them a letter from the PHA that 

County vouchers at this time, only LA 

states that the voucher holder will be able 

City.—Los Angeles, CA

to move in to the unit within 14 days of 

Some landlords explicitly stated that the 

signing the lease. She then said that since 

reason they were placing this condition on their 

the PHA has to do an inspection and the 

acceptance was past difficulties with certain 

inspections can take a long time, they 

PHAs.

want to have this letter.—Fort Worth, TX

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

40

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Landlords Who Are Unsure of Housing 

were accepted. Before ending the call, these 

Choice Voucher Program Policy

landlords also asked clarifying questions 

about either the voucher or the voucher holder 

As Table 5.8 shows, most landlords who 

(discussed in the Landlords Who Accept 

were unsure of their voucher policy made an 

Vouchers section).

additional comment (162 of 231). Landlords 

who were unsure of their voucher policy 

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers

generally fell into one of two categories—those 

As noted previously, landlords gave responses 

who were unfamiliar with the HCV program and 

without an additional comment in 52.7 percent 

those who did not know whether a specific 

of the tests in which vouchers were accepted 

property or management company accepted 

(541 of 1,027 tests), and they were more likely 

vouchers. These landlords would often tell 

to ask questions or to be more equivocal than 

testers that they would call them back with 

landlords who did not accept vouchers (Table 

their voucher policy; however, approximately 

5.9). Most questions were directed toward 

22 percent (or 50 tests) of landlords who said 

learning more about the voucher or the voucher 

that they were unsure of their voucher policy 

holder. These questions were not presented 

did not call back the tester. Additionally, 

as conditions to voucher acceptance but were 

10 percent of landlords (23 tests) said that 

intended to help landlords learn more about 

they needed to meet the voucher holder in 

their prospective tenants.

person before revealing whether vouchers 

Table 5.8: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Unsure of Voucher Policy

Acceptance Tests

n

Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords were unsure of their voucher policy

231

No additional comment

69

29.9

Additional comment

162

70.1

Landlord did not call back

50

21.6

Landlord would not disclose policy until meeting the voucher holder

23

10.0

Landlord asked question about the voucher 

35

15.2

Landlord asked question about the voucher holder

77

33.3

Table 5.9: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Accepts Vouchers

Acceptance Tests

n

Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords accept vouchers

1,027

No additional comment

541

52.7

Additional comment

486

47.3

Landlord asked question about the voucher

202

19.7

Landlord asked question about the voucher holder

298

29.0

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

41

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Landlords who accepted vouchers and were 

and that I made about $33,000 a year, and 

interested in learning more about the voucher—

that I have good credit.—Washington, D.C.

which occurred in 202 tests—general y asked 

which PHA had issued or managed the voucher 

I asked her if they accepted vouchers and 

(89 tests) or how much the voucher would 

she said yes. She asked me who would 

cover (113 tests). The following are examples of 

be living in the apartment and I said four. 

these questions.

She asked me if there were children and 

I said three. She asked me how old they 

I asked [the landlord] if they accept 

were and I said 9, 10, and 12. She asked 

vouchers for it. She said, “Yes, we do,” 

me how much my voucher was for and I 

and asked me how much it was worth.—

said $1,900. She asked me if I had a job 

Washington, D.C.

and how much I made a year. I told her 

that I did have a job and I made about 

She then asked if I have Section 8. I said 

$30,000 a year.—Newark, NJ

yes and asked if they accept Section 8. 

She said yes and asked how much my 

voucher was for. I told her $2,025.—Los 

Conclusion

Angeles

We found evidence of voucher discrimination 

Landlords who accepted vouchers and were 

in all five sites. Voucher denial rates ranged 

interested in learning more about who would be 

from 15 to 78 percent and were highest in Fort 

leasing the apartment—which occurred in 298 

Worth and Los Angeles, were relatively high 

tests—mainly asked questions about how many 

in Philadelphia, but were significantly lower in 

people would be moving in (121 tests) or whether 

Newark and Washington, D.C. Denial was more 

the voucher holder was employed (86 tests). The 

common in low-poverty areas. On average, 

following are examples of these questions.

denial rates were 11 to 27 percentage points 

higher in low-poverty tracts compared with 

When I asked if they accepted vouchers, 

high-poverty tracts in the same sites, excluding 

she said they did and then asked how 

Washington, D.C. In Los Angeles and Fort 

many people would be moving in.—

Worth, denial rates in low-poverty areas hovered 

Washington, D.C.

above 80 percent. Washington, D.C. was the 

only location for which denial rates in low-

I asked if he accepted vouchers for the 

poverty and high-poverty tracts were similar. 

unit and he said yes... He asked how 

Explaining why denial rates vary so significantly 

many kids were moving in and I said 

in these sites is difficult, because the sites vary 

one.—Newark, NJ

on so many dimensions, including the local 

Unlike in the previous examples, landlords often 

housing market, PHA performance, PHA rent 

asked questions across both categories.

levels, and source-of-income protections. Sites 

with local source-of-income protections have 

I then asked if they accepted vouchers 

lower denial rates but other factors, such as 

and she said yes, then asked how much 

how PHAs set the rents, may affect denial rates 

my voucher was for, how much I would 

too. Local context matters when it comes to 

have to pay, if I had a job, how much I 

whether landlords accept vouchers. 

made, and if my credit was good. I said 

my voucher would cover the asking rent 

We did not ask landlords why they did or 

price, that the amount I would pay would 

did not accept vouchers, and most did not 

be determined after the housing authority 

offer additional comments; however, about 

did their calculations, that I did have a job 

one-fourth made unsolicited comments that 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

42

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

testers recorded. Some landlords did not 

accept vouchers because of concerns about 

the way the program operated (for example, 

PHA management) or the voucher holders (for 

example, concerns about drug dealing). Some 

landlords had accepted vouchers in the past but 

were not accepting them currently, suggesting 

that landlords would cap the number of vouchers 

they accepted or calibrate their acceptance based 

on the strength of the local housing market. Some 

landlords accepted vouchers with conditions 

placed work or income requirements on the 

voucher holder—a requirement they might also 

place on other renters without vouchers—and 

some asked about the voucher amount, noting 

that they required a specific rent or that the PHA 

pay most of the rent. These comments provide 

some insight into how landlords view participation 

in the HCV program and highlight the need for 

more research on landlord perspectives.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

43

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

44

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

CHAPTER 6:  

rather mentioned that they had a voucher and 

Do Landlords 

then continued the conversation with the landlord 

about the available housing. For example, a 

voucher tester might open the conversation 

Treat Voucher 

like: “Hel o, I saw an ad for a three bedroom at 

[address]. I have a voucher and I’m interested in 

Holders 

renting that apartment.”

We measured differential treatment in many 

Differently Than  ways. The key measures of discrimination for the 

paired telephone test were whether testers were 

Other Apartment  told about available housing when they spoke 

with a landlord and whether they were able to 

Seekers?

secure appointments to view available units. 

For the in-person tests, a key measure was the 

ability to successful y meet with a landlord to 

see housing during an in-person site visit. For 

Methodology

both the telephone and in-person tests, voucher 

and control testers who were told about or 

The second and third steps in the three-

viewed available housing used the tester forms 

part testing process were matched pair tests 

to record detailed information related to potential 

conducted first by telephone and then in person. 

differential treatment. Measures of differential 

Only voucher-affordable and available units with 

treatment included—

landlords who accepted vouchers were eligible to 

proceed to paired telephone testing. The paired 

• Landlord statements about eligibility 

in-person tests, in turn, were conducted only for 

requirements (for example, applications, 

units for which both voucher and control testers 

credit checks, cosigner requirements, or 

secured appointments during the telephone tests. 

eviction checks).

All testers were women portraying single mothers 

or grandmothers with young children, matched, 

• Qualifications for tenancy (for example, 

to the extent possible, on all characteristics 

information requested on marital status, 

other than voucher use. Chapter 3 and appendix 

income, occupation, or employer).

A discuss tester profiles in detail. Specific 

• Housing costs (for example, rent quoted 

household size was based on the number of 

by the landlord and any fees, incentives, or 

bedrooms in the unit being tested. The member 

move-in costs).

of the pair assigned to have a voucher was 

assigned at random. Income was assigned so 

These measures provided opportunities to assess 

that the control tester had income equal to that 

whether landlords who stated they accepted 

of the voucher-holding tester plus the value of the 

vouchers ultimately denied voucher holders 

voucher. The order of contact—voucher versus 

indirectly. Some past housing discrimination 

control tester—was also assigned at random.

studies included more limited telephone contact 

with landlords—for example, to measure a 

The voucher-holding tester of the paired 

tester’s ability to schedule an in-person test 

telephone and in-person tests revealed she had 

rather than to obtain detailed information about 

a voucher before discussing any information 

housing availability, cost, and terms—but this 

about housing. Voucher testers did not ask 

pilot study used a more comprehensive paired 

directly whether vouchers were accepted but 

telephone test protocol to explore the relative 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

45

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

contributions of telephone and in-person testing 

telephone and 62 in-person tests in Los Angeles) 

to measure discrimination against voucher 

and limited data for differential treatment 

holders. Studies examining discrimination against 

measures that rely on in-person interactions with 

lesbians and gay men (Levy et al., 2017) and 

landlords. Table 6.1 shows the total numbers of 

families with children (Aron et al., 2016) also used 

paired telephone and in-person tests conducted 

more comprehensive telephone tests.

in each site, along with the total voucher 

acceptance tests conducted in each site.

High Rates of Voucher Denials in 

In Fort Worth and Los Angeles, a combination of 

Los Angeles and Fort Worth Made  high voucher denial rates and high proportions 

It Impossible To Conduct Enough  of paired telephone tests ending without 

Paired Tests in These Locations

appointments to meet landlords led to fewer-

than-anticipated completed in-person tests.

When designing this study, we expected 

For example, of the 998 acceptance tests 

to conduct approximately 2,550 voucher 

completed in Los Angeles, only 62 proceeded 

acceptance tests to achieve 1,650 paired 

to in-person tests, and only 40 of the in-person 

telephone tests and 1,200 in-person paired 

tests resulted in both voucher and control testers 

tests.37 Acceptance test targets were later 

viewing units in person. Only 25 in-person tests 

increased in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, as 

were conducted in Los Angeles by Black tester 

it became clear that chal enges identifying 

pairs, with even fewer tests resulting in both 

advertisements for testing, combined with high 

testers meeting with a landlord. In Newark, nearly 

voucher denial rates, required that many more 

all (about 89 percent) telephone tests resulted 

acceptance tests be conducted before units 

in both testers securing an appointment for an 

could be identified for paired testing. In the end, 

in-person meeting with a landlord (380 of 426 

we completed more voucher acceptance tests 

tests; Table 6.2). In contrast, only 56 percent of 

(3,780) than initial y expected but nonetheless 

Fort Worth telephone tests (80 of 142 tests) and 

completed fewer telephone and in-person paired 

60 percent of Los Angeles telephone tests (75 

tests than anticipated (694 telephone and 509 

of 126 tests) resulted in both testers securing 

in-person tests). 

appointments to meet with landlords (and thus 

In total, we conducted 694 paired telephone tests 

remain eligible to proceed to in-person tests).38 

and 509 in-person tests in the three testing sites 

Given the high rates of outright denial of 

where we conducted paired testing (Fort Worth, 

vouchers in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, few 

Los Angeles, and Newark). Newark represents 61 

Table 6.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode

tests proceeded to in-person paired tests, 

percent of all paired telephone tests and 73 

leaving small sample sizes for paired testing—

percent of all in-person tests. High landlord 

particularly for measures collected during 

Test Site

Voucher Acceptance Tests

Telephone Tests

In-Person Tests

denial rates in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, 

in-person interactions with landlords and for 

Fort Worth, TX

1,146

142

73

combined with the difficulty of finding eligible 

subgroup analyses by race and neighborhood 

Los Angeles, CA

998

126

62

housing, resulted in small numbers of paired 

poverty rate.39 As a result, we discuss only 

Newark, NJ

782

426

374

tests conducted in those sites (142 telephone and 

Newark for the telephone and in-person test 

Philadelphia, PA

422

NA

NA

73 in-person tests in Fort Worth and 126 

results. Detailed results for the Fort Worth and 

Washington, DC

432

NA

NA

Total

3,780

694

509

37  For more detail, see appendix A.

38  See appendix B.

NA = not applicable.

39  We did not attempt to combine the results for the three sites for two main reasons. Pooling tests would involve weighting the data from each site, which is difficult to do without obscuring results. Giving equal weight to each site, for example, would result in large standard errors caused by the larger standard errors in sites with small sample sizes, which would require large differences in treatment to be statistically significant. Weighting the sites proportionally, alternatively, would give the Newark results prominence (to varying degrees, based on different sample sizes for sets of outcome measures), resulting in findings that would not truly represent outcomes for the three sites and would be difficult to interpret.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

46

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

telephone and 62 in-person tests in Los Angeles) 

Los Angeles telephone and in-person tests are 

person. There were no statistical y significant 

and limited data for differential treatment 

available in appendices B and C, but they should 

differences in these outcomes for voucher 

measures that rely on in-person interactions with 

be interpreted with caution because of the small 

holders compared with control testers. About 89 

landlords. Table 6.1 shows the total numbers of 

sample sizes. 

percent of all paired telephone tests attempted 

paired telephone and in-person tests conducted 

in Newark resulted in either the voucher or the 

in each site, along with the total voucher 

Landlords General y Treat 

control tester securing appointments with a 

acceptance tests conducted in each site.

Voucher Holders Equal y During 

landlord and the test proceeding to in-person 

testing (380 of 426 tests).41

In Fort Worth and Los Angeles, a combination of 

Paired Telephone Inquiries

high voucher denial rates and high proportions 

The Newark telephone testers with vouchers 

of paired telephone tests ending without 

Table 6.2 presents results from the paired 

were told about slightly fewer units compared 

appointments to meet landlords led to fewer-

telephone tests in Newark.40 For the most part, 

with their counterparts without vouchers. The 

than-anticipated completed in-person tests.

the paired telephone tests in Newark revealed 

difference was statistical y significant but quite 

minimal additional evidence of discrimination 

smal . On average, voucher testers were told 

For example, of the 998 acceptance tests 

against voucher holders. Once an eligible unit 

about 1.1 units of available housing, and testers 

completed in Los Angeles, only 62 proceeded 

with a landlord who stated he or she accepted 

without vouchers were told about 1.2 units. No 

to in-person tests, and only 40 of the in-person 

vouchers was identified, nearly all voucher 

significant differences emerge in rent or overall 

tests resulted in both voucher and control testers 

holder and control testers were able to obtain 

net costs or in testers being able to make an 

viewing units in person. Only 25 in-person tests 

information about housing and schedule 

appointment or told about available units.

were conducted in Los Angeles by Black tester 

appointments to see units through paired 

pairs, with even fewer tests resulting in both 

telephone tests.

testers meeting with a landlord. In Newark, nearly 

Differences in Treatment in 

all (about 89 percent) telephone tests resulted 

In 93 percent of the 426 Newark paired telephone 

Paired Telephone Tests Suggest 

in both testers securing an appointment for an 

tests, both voucher holder and control testers 

Landlords Screen Voucher 

in-person meeting with a landlord (380 of 426 

were able to make contact with a landlord to 

Holders and Non-Voucher 

tests; Table 6.2). In contrast, only 56 percent of 

get information about housing, and 96 percent 

Fort Worth telephone tests (80 of 142 tests) and 

of the testers who were able to speak to a 

Holders Using Different Criteria

60 percent of Los Angeles telephone tests (75 

landlord were told about one or more available 

Other small but statistical y significant 

of 126 tests) resulted in both testers securing 

units. Of the testers who were told about 

differences emerged through the Newark paired 

appointments to meet with landlords (and thus 

available housing, nearly all (98 percent) made 

telephone tests in how landlords discussed 

remain eligible to proceed to in-person tests).38 

appointments with landlords to view housing in 

qualifications for tenancy and housing costs. 

Given the high rates of outright denial of 

vouchers in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, few 

Table 6.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode

tests proceeded to in-person paired tests, 

leaving small sample sizes for paired testing—

particularly for measures collected during 

Test Site

Voucher Acceptance Tests

Telephone Tests

In-Person Tests

in-person interactions with landlords and for 

Fort Worth, TX

1,146

142

73

subgroup analyses by race and neighborhood 

Los Angeles, CA

998

126

62

poverty rate.39 As a result, we discuss only 

Newark, NJ

782

426

374

Newark for the telephone and in-person test 

Philadelphia, PA

422

NA

NA

results. Detailed results for the Fort Worth and 

Washington, DC

432

NA

NA

Total

3,780

694

509

NA = not applicable.

40  Los Angeles and Fort Worth results are presented in appendix B.

41  Approximately 1 percent of assigned telephone tests failed to proceed to a paired test, because only one of the testers in a pair was able to secure an appointment.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

47

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

  Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Testers able to obtain 

93.4%

1.4%

2.6%

– 1.2%

1.0%

426

information about housing

If testers obtained housing 

information

Testers told any units available

95.5%

0.8%

0.5%

0.3%

0.6%

398

One tester told about more 

13.1%

6.0%

7.0%

2.3%

398

***

units

Average number of units told 

1.22

1.14

0.08

0.04

398

**

about

Testers able to get an 

98.2%

0.3%

0.5%

– 0.3%

0.5%

380

appointment

Requirements

Told an application must be 

67.4%

11.8%

11.6%

0.3%

2.7%

380

completed

Told a credit check must be 

60.8%

14.7%

12.6%

2.1%

2.5%

380

completed

Told a cosigner is required

0.0%

2.4%

1.3%

1.1%

0.9%

380

Told a background check must 

17.1%

17.6%

16.8%

0.8%

3.5%

380

be done

Told an eviction check must be 

8.2%

13.7%

15.3%

– 1.6%

3.1%

380

done

Offered a copy of application by 

3.4%

7.9%

6.3%

1.6%

2.3%

380

landlord

Told to apply online or given 

0.8%

4.2%

7.1%

– 2.9%

2.1%

380

website address for application

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital 

0.3%

3.2%

2.6%

0.5%

1.4%

380

status

Landlord requested household 

21.1%

16.1%

18.7%

– 2.6%

3.2%

380

size or composition

Landlord requested income

3.9%

10.5%

6.3%

4.2%

2.0%

380

**

Landlord requested source of 

3.4%

10.0%

9.7%

0.3%

2.1%

380

income

Landlord requested occupation

0.8%

6.6%

3.2%

3.4%

1.7%

380

**

Landlord requested employer

1.3%

7.9%

4.5%

3.4%

1.7%

380

*

Landlord requested length of 

0.3%

2.6%

2.4%

0.3%

1.1%

380

employment

Landlord requested credit 

4.5%

14.2%

11.1%

3.2%

2.9%

380

standing

(continued)

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

48

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

  Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey 

(continued)

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Landlord requested rent history, 

1.6%

4.7%

5.8%

– 1.1%

1.5%

380

including evictions

Landlord requested contact 

17.6%

15.8%

17.1%

– 1.3%

2.2%

380

information

Landlord requested other information

0.0%

4.5%

3.2%

1.3%

1.0%

380

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

2.4%

7.4%

3.4%

3.9%

1.6%

380

**

requirements

Told whether qualified to rent the unit

0.5%

4.5%

7.6%

– 3.2%

1.8%

380

*

Told comment on fair housing

0.0%

0.5%

0.8%

– 0.3%

0.7%

380

Told remarks about race or ethnicity

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

380

Asked how security deposit will be 

0.0%

0.8%

3.7%

– 2.9%

1.2%

380

**

paid

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory

0.3%

1.6%

1.6%

0.0%

1.0%

380

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit

$1,486

$1,494

– $9

$5

380

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

37.1%

9.7%

9.5%

0.3%

2.0%

380

deposit or rent

One tester told higher fees toward 

12.9%

13.4%

– 0.5%

2.7%

380

deposit or rent

Average fees that would go toward 

$536

$510

$26

$61

380

deposit or rent

Told fees required for any unit

32.1%

7.1%

7.6%

– 0.5%

1.8%

380

One tester told higher fees

13.2%

14.5%

– 1.3%

2.5%

380

Average fees for any unit

$536

$510

$26

$61

380

Told about incentives

1.1%

4.2%

1.8%

2.4%

0.9%

380

**

One tester told higher incentives

4.5%

2.6%

1.8%

0.9%

380

*

Average incentives

$69

$41

$28

$20

380

Told security deposit required

93.7%

1.8%

2.6%

– 0.8%

1.2%

380

Average security deposit for any unit

$2,124

$2,121

$3

$24

351

One tester told higher yearly net cost

24.7%

30.5%

– 5.8%

3.8%

380

Average yearly net cost

$20,309

$20,424

– $115

$105

380

* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. ***  p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

49

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Considered together, these results suggest that 

Landlords Are More Likely To 

landlords understood how the HCV program 

Stand Up Voucher Holders for 

works and recognized the voucher as additional 

income available to the potential applicant. 

Apartment Viewings

Specifical y, landlords were significantly more 

Table 6.3 shows the detailed results from in-

likely to tell voucher testers they were qualified 

person testing in Newark.42 Although most 

for the unit during the telephone tests compared 

telephone testers were able to obtain information 

with the testers without vouchers (net difference 

about housing and make appointments to meet 

of 3.2 percentage points). Landlords were also 

with a landlord, once these appointments were 

significantly less likely to ask voucher holders 

made, the voucher testers were significantly less 

for information about their income, occupation, 

likely (by 8 percentage points) to successful y 

or employment compared with the control 

meet with a landlord to discuss their housing 

testers (net difference of between 3.4 and 4.2 

options. Appointment no-shows were common 

percentage points). It could be that landlords 

for all testers, with about 11 percent of all in-

were screening the control testers to make 

person tests ending with both testers being 

sure they were able to pay the rent, and they 

stood up by the landlord. However, overal , 

were more concerned about the unsubsidized 

landlords were significantly more likely to stand 

applicants’ ability to pay than they were about 

up voucher testers than their control matched-

the voucher applicants’ ability.

pair counterparts. 

Similarly, landlords were more likely to ask the 

Box 6.1 provides examples of voucher testers’ 

voucher testers about how they would pay a 

experiences of being stood up by landlords.

security deposit. Voucher holders are typical y 

required to pay for non-rent costs on their own, 

without financial assistance from the PHA or 

Box 6.1: Examples of Landlords Missing 

through the voucher. Landlords familiar with 

Scheduled Appointments With Voucher Testers 

the program may have specifical y been more 

concerned about voucher holders’ ability to pay 

Newark, NJ: After waiting for approximately 

security deposits compared with the testers 

15 minutes for [him] to arrive, I contacted 

without a voucher. All testers for this study 

him to confirm he still wanted to keep our 

were prepared to tell the landlord the source 

appointment. [He] answered and said he would 

of their security deposit funding, if asked, such 

not meet with me because the owners didn’t 

as their income tax refund or a church fund. 

want to rent to Section 8. I asked him if he 

Final y, landlords were less likely to tell the 

had anything else that met my requirements 

voucher testers about incentives for moving in, 

he could show me. He told me he thinks he 

such as reduced rent or security deposit. This 

could show me something else on June 23. I 

practice may reflect the landlords’ understanding 

asked for information about that unit and he 

that households without vouchers may need 

responded that I should call him then (on June 

additional financial incentives or help to afford 

23) to confirm where and when we should 

the rent, whereas voucher holders already have 

meet to discuss that unit. We concluded the 

the voucher subsidy. Alternatively, landlords may 

call and I left the apartment. On June 23, 2016, 

have offered more incentives to testers without 

I called [the landlord] to confirm where we 

vouchers in the hope of attracting them, as 

should meet per his request and he told me 

opposed to voucher holders, as tenants.

that he did not have anything available for me 

to meet with him about. I reminded him that 

he told me he did have something to show me 

42  Los Angeles and Fort Worth results are presented in appendix C.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

50

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

and he said I should call him on June 23 to 

without vouchers were also more likely than 

confirm a time and location to view it. He told 

their counterparts with vouchers to be asked for 

me I was mistaken and hung up the telephone.

additional information. “Additional information” 

includes why the tester was moving, length of 

Newark, NJ: On Wednesday, I got to the 

employment, and how she heard about the unit 

property … [and] after waiting 15 minutes with 

(Box 6.2).

no sign of the agent I called [the landlord] and 

asked to speak with [him]. [He] picked up the 

line and … I said, “Hi, I spoke to you earlier and 

Box 6.2: Sample Questions About Employment 

told you I have a voucher. We spoke regarding 

and Other Information From Control Tests

the apartment and I’m in front of it now waiting 

for you and I was wondering if you were going 

Questions about employment 

to meet with me today.” He told me to hold 

general y focused on its duration.

on. Then he came back on the phone and said 

that they’re really not interested in renting to 

Los Angeles, CA: The [landlord asked] 

someone with a voucher because they really 

how long have you been at your job for. I 

don’t understand the whole process and being 

told him I’ve been there for three years.

that it’s the only residential unit they deal 

Newark, NJ: [The landlord] asked what 

with, they don’t want any extra work because 

town I work in. I replied Hackensack and 

there’s a voucher involved. I said “Ok, thank 

he asked how long have I worked at my 

you. Do you have anything else available?” 

current job. I informed him, 2 years.

and he said no. We ended the conversation. 

I then left the property shortly after that.

Requests for other information 

covered a range of topics.

In addition, when both testers in a pair did 

Newark, NJ: Agent asked where I currently 

successful y meet with a landlord, the voucher 

live and why I’m moving. I told her I live in 

testers were less likely to be told units were 

the area but I’m just looking for something 

available and were more likely (by 16 percentage 

different with more room for my children.

points) to be told about fewer available units 

Fort Worth, TX: [The landlord asked my] 

compared with their counterpart testers without 

reason for moving. I said that the ad seemed 

a voucher. On average, voucher testers were 

like something that I would be interested in.

told about fewer total units, although as with 

Fort Worth, TX: I spoke with [the 

the paired telephone tests, the magnitude of the 

landlord], and he asked if I had any 

difference was statistical y significant but quite 

evictions or felonies. I said no.

small (1.2 units versus 1.4 units).

Los Angeles, CA: [The landlord asked] 

Also, consistent with the paired telephone 

how I heard about the unit. 

tests, once voucher testers successful y met 

with landlords to discuss housing options, 

differential treatment was minimal and appeared 

Landlords were more likely to ask control testers 

to reflect the landlords’ understanding of 

about their employment or other information. 

vouchers as additional income for housing. The 

This inquiry may be because landlords have less 

voucher testers were more likely to be offered 

of a guaranteed rent payment with the control 

an application, were less likely to be asked 

testers. As discussed in detail in appendix A, 

about their employers, and were less likely to 

the voucher and control testers had roughly 

be told about income requirements. Testers 

equivalent employment and income profiles 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

51

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

   Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Testers able to meet with landlord

58.0%

19.3%

11.2%

8.1%

2.9%

374

***

If testers able to meet with 

landlord

Told any units available

95.4%

3.2%

0.5%

2.8%

1.6%

217

*

One tester told about more units

22.1%

6.0%

16.1%

3.2%

217

***

Average number of units told about

1.39

1.19

0.19

0.05

217

***

If available units recommended

Inspected units

87.0%

3.4%

3.4%

0.0%

1.7%

207

One tester inspected more units

11.1%

6.3%

4.8%

2.6%

207

*

Average number of units inspected

1.05

1.00

0.05

0.04

207

Requirements

Told an application must be 

80.2%

6.8%

9.2%

– 2.4%

2.9%

207

completed

Told a credit check must be 

74.9%

8.7%

9.2%

– 0.5%

2.8%

207

completed

Told a cosigner is required

0.5%

3.9%

1.9%

1.9%

1.8%

207

Told a background check must be 

19.8%

22.7%

16.9%

5.8%

4.0%

207

done

Told an eviction check must be 

10.6%

15.9%

16.9%

– 1.0%

4.5%

207

done

Offered a copy of application by 

4.3%

9.2%

15.5%

– 6.3%

3.5%

207

*

landlord

Told to apply online or given 

21.7%

15.0%

18.4%

– 3.4%

3.9%

207

website address for application

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status

1.4%

2.4%

2.4%

0.0%

1.5%

207

Landlord requested household size 

37.2%

15.9%

20.3%

– 4.3%

4.2%

207

or composition

Landlord requested income

5.3%

13.5%

9.2%

4.3%

2.8%

207

Landlord requested source of 

7.2%

15.9%

13.5%

2.4%

4.3%

207

income

Landlord requested occupation

3.4%

10.1%

7.2%

2.9%

2.8%

207

Landlord requested employer

4.3%

15.0%

8.7%

6.3%

3.4%

207

*

Landlord requested length of 

1.4%

4.8%

1.9%

2.9%

1.8%

207

employment

Landlord requested credit standing

8.2%

16.4%

12.6%

3.9%

4.2%

207

Landlord requested rent history, 

2.4%

5.8%

6.8%

– 1.0%

2.4%

207

including evictions

Landlord requested contact 

25.1%

15.5%

21.3%

– 5.8%

3.7%

207

information

Landlord requested other 

0.5%

7.2%

1.0%

6.3%

1.9%

207

***

information

(continued)

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

52

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

   Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey 

(continued)

Standard 

Net 

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher

Error of 

n

Difference

Difference

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

1.4%

10.1%

5.3%

4.8%

2.4%

207

*

requirements

Told whether qualified to rent the 

0.5%

4.3%

6.8%

– 2.4%

2.8%

207

unit

Told comment on fair housing

0.0%

1.0%

1.4%

– 0.5%

1.1%

207

Told remarks about race or 

0.5%

1.0%

2.4%

– 1.4%

1.1%

207

ethnicity

Asked how security deposit will 

0.0%

2.4%

4.3%

– 1.9%

2.2%

207

be paid

Told renter’s insurance is 

0.5%

1.0%

1.9%

– 1.0%

1.2%

207

mandatory

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit

$1,507

$1,508

$0

$7

207

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

2.9%

7.7%

4.8%

2.9%

2.6%

207

deposit or rent

One tester told higher fees toward 

8.2%

5.3%

2.9%

2.6%

207

deposit or rent

Average fees that would go toward 

$84

$70

$14

$38

207

deposit or rent

Told fees required for any unit

71.0%

4.8%

7.7%

¬ – 2.9%

2.1%

207

One tester told higher fees

19.3%

22.7%

– 3.4%

4.5%

207

Average fees for any unit

$537

$580

– $43

$35

207

Told about incentives

1.9%

2.9%

3.4%

– 0.5%

1.9%

207

One tester told higher incentives

3.4%

4.3%

– 1.0%

2.3%

207

Average incentives

$54

$65

– $11

$14

207

Told security deposit required

95.7%

1.9%

2.4%

– 0.5%

1.5%

207

Average security deposit for any 

$2,121

$2,147

– $26

$26

198

unit

One tester told higher yearly net 

30.0%

33.3%

– 3.4%

6.2%

207

cost

Average yearly net cost

$20,613

$20,725

– $111

$114

207

* p < 0.10. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

53

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

when including the value of the voucher. 

treated by race or neighborhood poverty 

Voucher-holding testers were assigned annual 

rate for any of the differential treatment 

household incomes based on 30 percent of 

measures. These results—particularly those by 

AMI for their household size and jurisdiction 

neighborhood poverty rate—must be considered 

(consistent with the typical voucher holder 

with caution and cannot be considered definitive 

nationwide), and incomes for control testers 

evidence that no differences in treatment exist 

were based on 30 percent of AMI plus the 

by voucher holders’ race or neighborhood 

estimated annual value of the voucher. This 

poverty rate. The biggest limitation in exploring 

income assignment was intended to account 

differences by race and neighborhood poverty 

for the income represented by the voucher and 

rate is that we have only one site (Newark) with 

to prevent the possibility that landlords would 

a large enough sample size to be analyzed. 

simply dismiss the low-income unsubsidized 

We did not conduct regression analyses with 

applicants in favor of voucher holders.

the Fort Worth and Los Angeles in-person 

test results, because their sample sizes were 

Discrimination by Voucher Holder  prohibitively smal . For the Newark tests by 

Race and by Neighborhood 

neighborhood poverty rates, sample sizes 

Poverty Rate

for the low- and high-poverty neighborhoods 

were simply too small to draw any meaningful 

inferences. Only 42 tests conducted in high-

As noted previously, the private rental market 

poverty neighborhoods and 57 in low-poverty 

has a long history of discriminating against 

areas resulted in tester pairs collecting detailed 

apartment seekers because of their race or 

differential treatment measures.

ethnicity, and some studies show differential 

treatment by race among those with vouchers. 

The primary goal of this study was to understand 

In addition, voucher holders have significant 

discrimination against voucher holders. This 

chal enges locating units in low-poverty areas 

study was not designed to measure whether 

and often need extra assistance to move to 

landlords treat Black voucher holders differently 

these neighborhoods. To test for differences in 

than White renters general y or than White 

outcomes by race and neighborhood poverty 

voucher holders. The points of comparison for 

rate, we ran a series of regression analyses, each 

voucher testers were control testers of the same 

with an outcome of interest from the in-person 

race. A discussion of the chal enges addressing 

tests as the dependent variable (for example, 

the intersection of racial discrimination and 

number of units told about) and indicator 

voucher discrimination is in chapter 7.

variables for the tester’s race (1 = Black) and 

the poverty rate of the census tract (1 = low-

Conclusion

poverty census tract) separately as independent 

variables. The coefficients and t-statistics on 

Using a telephone and in-person paired-testing 

the independent variables identified differences 

methodology enabled us to measure differential 

in the outcomes of interest when controlling for 

treatment between voucher holders and non-

these variables. Results from the regression 

voucher holders. These pairs were matched 

analyses are in appendix D.43

on all characteristics (for example, gender, 

race, income, family size) except the voucher, 

Overal , our results show nearly no statistical y 

indicating that any differences in treatment from 

significant differences in how testers were 

landlords can be attributed to the voucher. The 

43  The analytic approach used for these analyses is consistent with analyses commonly done for other HUD housing discrimination studies the study team conducted that look for variations in differential treatment outcomes for different tester or test context characteristics. See, for example, the study examining housing discrimination against lesbians and gay men (Levy et al., 2017).

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

54

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

paired tests were conducted only with landlords 

holders, we analyzed data to look for differences 

who said they accepted vouchers during the 

by race and neighborhood poverty rate. We 

voucher acceptance tests. The high denial rates 

were constrained in our ability to analyze these 

among landlords in Fort Worth and Los Angeles 

differences, because only Newark had enough 

made it impossible to complete our paired-

paired tests. Our results showed no statistical 

testing goals in these sites, which limited our 

differences in how testers were treated by race 

analysis. These sites had a high rate of “door 

or neighborhood type. We caution against 

slamming,” and voucher holders had difficulty 

treating these findings as definitive, as they are 

finding units in these locations and landlords to 

constrained by sample size and were only for 

accept their voucher.

one site.

In Newark, a site with low denial rates, we 

conducted enough paired tests to look for 

nuanced forms of discrimination that might 

happen when a landlord is providing information 

about the unit or showing the unit. During the 

telephone stage, nearly all voucher holders and 

control testers could obtain information about the 

housing unit and schedule an appointment to see 

the unit. Small differences during the telephone-

paired tests suggest that landlords use different 

screening criteria for voucher holders and non-

voucher holders. Notably, landlords were more 

likely to ask voucher holders about how they 

would pay their security deposit. Landlords were 

also more likely to ask non-voucher holders 

about their employment and income, suggesting 

that landlords are keeping their eye on control 

testers’ ability to pay the rent and have less 

concern about this factor from voucher holders, 

who come with a guaranteed rental subsidy.

During the in-person stage, our tester pairs 

met with landlords for apartment viewings. 

No-shows from landlords were common for all 

testers. About 11 percent of tests ended with the 

landlord standing up the voucher holder and the 

control tester. Voucher holders, however, were 

about 8 percentage points more likely than the 

control testers to be stood up. This behavior 

suggests that some landlords may have said they 

accepted vouchers during the telephone phase 

but did not follow through with meeting voucher 

holders, treating them differently than non-

voucher holders.

In addition to looking at differential treatment 

between voucher holders and non-voucher 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

55

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

56

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

CHAPTER 7: 

protections and with high denial rates, where the 

Implications for  feasibility of paired tests was low. This stage also 

provided opportunities to capture differences in 

denial rates by neighborhood poverty rate.

Future Testing 

Where landlords accepted vouchers, the 

Studies

paired telephone and in-person tests were 

each a powerful tool for capturing more subtle 

differences in treatment between voucher 

holders and their counterparts—but paired 

In addition to measuring discrimination against 

in-person tests offered more nuanced insights 

voucher holders, a goal of this pilot study was 

about the incidence and nature of discrimination. 

to explore different testing methodologies in 

For example, control testers for both the in-

order to inform future studies. In this chapter, 

person and the telephone tests were more 

we summarize lessons learned from designing 

likely to be told about more units than their 

and fielding the pilot study, and provide 

counterparts. However, the magnitude of the 

some recommendations for future voucher 

difference in treatment was greater for the in-

discrimination studies.

person tests. In-person control testers were 

told about more units 16 percent more often 

Lessons for Designing 

than voucher testers compared with 7 percent 

and Implementing Voucher 

for phone tests. In addition, some observations 

about landlords’ differential treatment—notably, 

Discrimination Testing Studies

the additional measure of failed attempts to meet 

with landlords at scheduled appointments—can 

Unique considerations emerged during the 

be revealed only through in-person interactions. 

voucher discrimination study design and 

In contrast, nearly all paired phone testers were 

implementation process, and findings shed light 

able to make appointments with landlords to 

on the different contributions of each stage of the 

view housing.

testing process. First, the acceptance tests and 

paired in-person tests revealed the most useful 

In-person tests also more closely resemble 

information about the incidence and nature 

a bona fide rental housing search, stopping 

of discrimination. Second, adhering to HCV 

short of submitting an application. In-person 

program and PHA rules required considerable 

testers were instructed to talk with the person 

effort. Final y, focusing on the lowest end of the 

most likely to make final leasing decisions, 

rental housing market and a narrow range of unit 

but testers interacting with landlords over the 

sizes could be chal enging. 

telephone were less likely to speak with a final 

decision maker—partly because large property 

Acceptance Tests and In-Person 

management companies use centralized call 

Paired Tests Yield the Most Valuable 

centers. Call center staff are not authorized 

Information 

to make leasing decisions and as experience 

from recent housing discrimination studies 

As chapters 4, 5, and 6 described, the three 

suggests, call center staff are careful y trained 

stages of the testing process each yielded 

to follow a script and might be incentivized to 

different information about discriminatory 

convince homeseekers to schedule an in-person 

behavior. The voucher acceptance tests provided 

appointment (Aron et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2017). 

the most tangible measure of outright denials, 

As a result, findings using telephone tests alone 

particularly in places without source-of-income 

may reflect centralized call centers’ protocols 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

57

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

rather than differential treatment by leasing 

sites were larger than any single PHA jurisdiction, 

agents. Recent studies of housing discrimination 

would have required some testers to present 

based on sexual orientation and against families 

themselves as “porting” to new PHAs outside 

with children also compared the relative utility 

the “home” PHA’s jurisdiction. Porting could 

of phone versus in-person testing (Aron et al., 

be unappealing to landlords concerned about 

2016; Levy et al., 2017). These studies similarly 

additional administrative steps or delays. Instead, 

suggest that modestly different patterns could be 

testers portrayed voucher holders moving within 

observed using in-person tests.

the jurisdiction of the advertised rental unit’s 

local PHA. This approach al eviated concerns 

Tester Profiles Must Reflect Housing 

about porting or highlighting specific PHAs 

Choice Voucher Program Rules

but required a more complex testing approach 

with unique profiles for each of the 17 PHAs 

A clear lesson from this study is that any 

operating HCV programs in our testing sites, as 

rigorous paired-testing study of voucher-holder 

chapter 3 described. This approach included 152 

discrimination must incorporate HCV program-

different payment standards across the study 

specific policies and requirements to minimize 

sites, with separate standards by bedroom size 

risk of detection and ensure that findings are 

and by neighborhood poverty rate. Occupancy 

credible. Tester training must prepare testers for 

standards were similarly complex.

questions unique to the HCV program and the 

PHA jurisdiction where testing takes place.

It is also necessary to prepare testers to field 

potential questions from landlords about 

An additional factor affecting the effort 

the HCV program and PHA policies. In most 

needed to develop accurate tester profiles 

cases, landlords did not ask detailed questions 

is the need to anticipate how variations in 

during paired tests, but testers occasional y 

PHA characteristics or policies could affect 

encountered landlords who were unfamiliar with 

landlords’ likelihood of accepting vouchers. 

the program and asked about how vouchers 

For example, some landlords may prefer or 

work, or landlords who knew about the program 

avoid vouchers from certain PHAs—whether 

and asked specific questions about PHA 

because they prefer certain payment standard 

case managers or HCV program offices. To 

or occupancy policies, because they perceive a 

prepare for these encounters, a HCV program 

particular PHA to be higher or lower performing 

primer was developed with information on 

or because they perceive a PHA to have 

the HCV program’s purpose and local-level 

more rigorous or accommodating inspection 

implementation, as well as program eligibility 

policies. Although it is impossible to anticipate 

requirements, portability, the voucher search 

all the reasons landlords may prefer or avoid 

timeline, unit inspections, utility al owances, 

particular PHAs, testing design must consider 

payment standards, tenant and housing 

how different approaches might inadvertently 

assistance payments, and occupancy guidelines. 

emphasize landlord perceptions of particular 

Testers portraying voucher holders were also 

PHAs rather than discrimination against 

assigned additional information relative to their 

voucher holders. 

control tester counterparts, to be provided only if 

For example, for the current study, we initial y 

the landlord asked—such as a source of funding 

considered selecting a single PHA in each site 

for their security deposit.44 

to be assigned to all tests. This approach would 

simplify tester profiles but, because our testing 

44  During the design phase, the project team heard from housing counselors that many voucher holders do not have funds for a security deposit. If a landlord asked them, we wanted both testers in a pair to explain that they had the funds so that the security deposit could not become a variable that could affect the outcome of a test.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

58

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

Setting Appropriate Income 

This small difference in current employment 

Profiles Is Critical

tenure, as well as in current residence, helped 

balance the lack of wage income compared with 

A critical component of the testing process 

the control household and ensured the voucher 

involves setting voucher and control tester 

holder would otherwise be as appealing a 

income levels so that paired testers were 

candidate as the control tester.45

comparably qualified with respect to income and 

As chapter 6 discussed, landlords in paired tests 

rent burden, while accounting for the use of a 

appeared to recognize the voucher as income 

voucher by one tester.

and questioned the control testers about factors 

Income assignments for testers designated 

related to their ability to pay the rent.

as voucher holders were straightforward and 

consistent with program guidelines. Testers 

Assessing the Role of Race and 

were assigned household incomes based on the 

Ethnicity in Voucher-Holder 

voucher-eligible income limits of 30 to 40 percent 

Discrimination Is Complex

of AMI. Establishing control testers’ incomes 

Our study was designed to measure the overall 

was more complicated and had important 

incidence and nature of voucher discrimination in 

implications. If control tester incomes were set 

our study sites. A longstanding question related 

too low and rent burdens too high, landlords 

to voucher discrimination is whether it is driven 

might favor the voucher-holding testers. 

or exacerbated by racial discrimination, and 

Alternatively, if control testers’ income was set 

whether landlords treat non-White voucher 

too high in comparison with voucher holders who 

holders differently from White voucher 

had lower wage income not counting the voucher 

holders. We did not explore whether landlords 

subsidy, landlords might favor control testers. We 

view vouchers as a proxy for race. Our ability 

ultimately set control testers’ household incomes 

to explore whether discrimination varied by the 

as equal to the voucher tester’s income plus the 

voucher holder’s race was dependent on our 

estimated value of the voucher income. Control 

ability to collect a large number of in-person 

testers paid higher percentages of their income 

tests in which both testers interacted with a 

toward rent compared with voucher holders 

housing provider. Our study did not reveal racial 

(40 to 50 percent for control testers versus 30 

bias in the one site we achieved a sufficiently 

percent for voucher testers). However, this level 

large sample of in-person tests—but this result 

of rent burden is consistent with low-income 

cannot be considered definitive evidence that 

households’ true experiences in the private 

voucher holders do not experience discrimination 

market and may even be lower than what is 

differently based on their race.

typical for low- or moderate-income households 

in our testing sites.

Some expert panel members initial y suggested 

four-part in-person tests to capture the 

Consistent with past housing discrimination 

interaction of race and voucher use and 

studies, both testers were assigned credible 

examine whether landlords treat non-White 

occupations based on their income. The voucher 

voucher holders differently than White voucher 

tester’s current employment, however, was 

holders. These tests involve four testers, 

slightly longer than the control tester’s, who had 

matched on all characteristics aside from 

been in her current position for at least 2 years. 

45  In past housing discrimination studies, testers were unambiguously well qualified for the advertised housing. Testers were assigned comparable financial qualifications, with control testers assigned slightly lower incomes than their counterparts. This minimizes the risk of a landlord detecting overly similar tester pairs. Moreover, assigning the control tester the marginally less qualified characteristics helps ensure that any differential treatment can be attributed to the focal tester’s key characteristic (for example, race or ethnicity, gender) as opposed to the slight variations in financial profiles. For the current study, this approach was problematic, as the amount and source of income was tied to the characteristic in question for testing.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

59

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

race and voucher use—a pair of White testers 

set sampling targets suggested that sufficient 

and a pair of Black testers. In each pair, one 

voucher-affordable units were in low-poverty 

tester with a voucher and one without would 

areas to make oversampling from these areas 

test the same housing unit and landlord to 

unnecessary. The testing team tracked the share 

capture differential treatment by both race and 

of tests completed in low-poverty areas and 

voucher use. Although theoretical y possible, 

was prepared to oversample advertisements in 

such tests were not incorporated into the 

low-poverty neighborhoods if fewer than 15 to 

final design because of concerns about their 

20 percent of voucher acceptance tests were in 

feasibility. In addition, these tests cannot shed 

these areas. In the end, oversampling was not 

light on whether landlords view vouchers as a 

necessary.

proxy for race, or the extent to which voucher 

discrimination is driven by racial discrimination. 

Some neighborhoods did prove impossible to 

The actual testing experience—particularly in 

find target numbers of advertisements or units 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles—suggests these 

available for testing, but these areas appear to 

tests would not have been feasible for the 

have been places with low vacancy rates and not 

current pilot study and would be extremely 

necessarily areas with low poverty rates. In such 

chal enging for any voucher discrimination 

places, oversampling would not be possible, 

studies aiming to complete large numbers of 

because not enough units were available for 

tests. The experience of this study suggests that 

testing.

large-scale, in-person voucher discrimination 

Ad Screening and Contacting 

testing must anticipate high denial rates and 

Landlords Is Challenging and Impacts 

unique testing chal enges.

Testing Timelines

Future research, in addition to continuing to 

explore the overall incidence and nature of 

For other housing discrimination studies with 

voucher discrimination, can focus explicitly on 

fewer limitations on unit size or cost, the 

this question of whether non-White voucher 

study team was able to auto-harvest rental 

holders experience different degrees or types 

advertisements electronical y “scraped” from 

of discrimination in the housing market. For 

online sources. In the current study, this 

example, an initial acceptance test phase can be 

automated approach was not feasible, because 

followed by in-person paired testing with testers 

detailed information about location, cost, 

matched on voucher use and other qualifications, 

and size needed to be reviewed and verified 

with the tester’s race or ethnicity as the central 

before advertisements could move forward for 

characteristics of interest. 

testing. Instead, project staff manual y screened 

advertisements found on housing websites to 

Conducting Testing in Low-Poverty 

identify units that appeared to be eligible for 

Areas Is Feasible

testing, using a mapping tool created for this 

project that identified payment standards for 

An initial question and concern for this 

each unit based on census tract and bedroom 

study was the feasibility of finding sufficient 

size. The study team conducted the sampling 

numbers of units in low-poverty neighborhoods 

process and the voucher acceptance tests in 

(approximated as ZIP Codes) to al ow for 

their Washington D.C. office, as opposed to 

comparisons with higher poverty neighborhoods. 

at local testing organizations, for all five sites. 

Our experience was that testing in low-

Eligible advertisements were transmitted to the 

poverty “opportunity” areas is feasible without 

three local testing organizations conducting 

oversampling low-poverty neighborhoods. 

paired testing.

Preliminary analyses of the ACS data used to 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

60

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

Given the number of advertisements that 

study was being conducted. To minimize the 

had to be screened to find eligible housing 

risk of detection, project staff tracked every 

and the difficulty reaching landlords who 

contact made with a landlord, by whom it was 

accepted vouchers (more than one-third of the 

made, under what alias (project staff regularly 

acceptance tests required multiple contacts, 

changed the names they provided to landlords), 

and some tests required more than one mode 

and with what outgoing telephone number (they 

of contact), it was difficult for the study team 

also changed telephone numbers regularly). If 

or local testing organizations to predict how 

contact with a landlord was determined to be a 

many advertisements would be available to 

detection risk by the director of field operations, 

assign to paired testers in a given week, or 

the landlord could be deemed ineligible for 

when. As a result, tester pairs were not always 

testing for a set period of time. As data collection 

able to accept assignments when they became 

proceeded and more landlords were excluded 

available. Further, some testers left the study 

from testing because of detection concerns, the 

when they found they could not be guaranteed 

chal enge of finding eligible advertisements grew.

a reliable or predictable workload. This problem 

was particularly acute in Fort Worth and Los 

The local testing organizations noted the 

Angeles, which had very few acceptance tests 

chal enge of contacting and meeting landlords 

proceeding to paired testing. Once tests were 

as characteristic of the lower end of the market, 

assigned for paired testing, as chapters 5 and 6 

particularly in tighter markets. With high demand 

noted, testers faced similar chal enges reaching 

for lower rent units, landlords do not need to 

landlords. Sometimes testers could not make 

respond to all inquiries or to prioritize customer 

contact at all (at which point the test could not 

service, such as responding to messages and 

proceed). When they did reach landlords, they 

returning calls. The local testing organizations 

were asked to call again or to communicate by 

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles have conducted 

e-mail or text—extending the time and effort 

hundreds of housing discrimination tests during 

required to conduct a test.

multiple studies since 2011; for the study on 

discrimination against lesbians and gay men 

The number of contacts and modes of 

(Levy et al., 2017), the groups completed 

communication have several other implications 

600 in-person tests in less than a year. 

for testing logistics and timeline. Take the 

These organizations noted that this voucher 

example of a voucher acceptance test in 

discrimination study was the most difficult and 

Newark: after the study team screened three 

frustrating of the studies that the study team 

advertisements from one source, a seemingly 

had conducted since 2011, and that it has shed 

eligible advertisement was identified. The tester 

light on how much support voucher holders 

cal ed and spoke to the landlord who said that he 

may require to navigate a chal enging, time 

was unsure about voucher policy. The landlord 

consuming, and sometimes futile housing search 

stated he would call back, but he did not. In total, 

process.

the tester attempted to reach the landlord seven 

times at two numbers the landlord provided 

Recommendations for Future 

and received two cal backs from the landlord 

Voucher Discrimination Testing 

before the test was closed out without resolving 

whether the landlord accepted vouchers. The 

Studies

multiple contacts and use of multiple telephone 

The chal enges described previously provide 

numbers increased the complexity of testing, 

useful insights to inform future studies. In the 

the operational burden of recording detailed 

following, we outline the proposed components 

information for each exchange, and the potential 

of a multiphase national study of voucher 

risk that a landlord could glean a discrimination 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

61

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

discrimination and the need for additional 

Extended Data Collection as a Design 

information about landlord behavior.

Feature

A Robust, Multiphase Design Strategy

Substantial effort is required to screen 

advertisements, identify eligible units, and 

A key finding of this study is that voucher 

conduct acceptance tests and in-person tests. 

acceptance tests provide immensely valuable 

In this study, the number of advertisements 

information about the extent and variability of 

screened to complete a single voucher 

outright voucher denials in diverse testing sites, 

acceptance test ranged from 24 advertisements 

and reveal the implications of high voucher 

in Philadelphia to 145 advertisements in Newark 

denial rates on paired-testing efforts. This 

(Table 4.2), and about 11 percent of all in-person 

finding suggests the need for a robust research 

tests ended with both testers being stood up 

design for future paired-testing studies that 

by the landlord. These and other chal enges 

can accommodate variations in denial rates. 

described previously require extended time for 

In addition, we find that paired in-person 

testing. For this pilot, the testing organizations 

tests provide more valuable information than 

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles could have 

paired phone tests. These insights in mind, we 

continued testing to achieve the 300 paired 

recommend a future national study of voucher 

tests initial y al ocated to each site but would 

discrimination using a two-phase approach that 

have needed to triple the timeline and budget 

incorporates acceptance tests followed by paired 

predicted for this study based on previous 

in-person tests.

paired-testing efforts. 

The first phase would include voucher 

acceptance testing by phone, conducted 

Research on Landlord Behavior

in a large sample of sites (for example, 50 

metropolitan areas nationwide). The goals of 

In chapter 5, we noted that landlords were not 

this phase would be (1) to characterize voucher 

asked why they did not accept vouchers, and 

discrimination national y and (2) to identify sites 

most did not comment on voucher denials during 

where additional testing would be viable and 

our testing. In the rare instances when comments 

provide additional information about the nature of 

were made, landlords expressed concerns about 

discrimination against voucher holders.

PHA HCV program implementation, declared 

beliefs that voucher holders are less appealing 

The second phase would involve continued 

tenants because of perceived risky or il icit 

voucher acceptance testing in a subsample 

behaviors, and al eged previous difficulties with 

of sites with moderate denial rates, in order 

voucher tenants. These comments provide 

to conduct sufficient in-person paired tests to 

limited insight into how landlords view the HCV 

permit robust analysis. Sites with the highest 

program. More focused research is needed to 

voucher denial rates would be removed from the 

understand landlords’ perceptions of the HCV 

in-person testing sample, as in-person paired 

program and motivations to accept or deny 

testing in these sites would be prohibitively 

voucher holders. This research could include 

chal enging and the denial rates would reveal 

indepth interviews with landlords who reject 

valuable information about the chal enges facing 

or set conditions on voucher holders, as well 

local voucher holders in the rental market. 

as with landlords who do accept vouchers. 

Under this approach, paired-testing resources 

Research with landlords can also shed light on 

would be targeted to areas where paired testing 

the extent to which racial discrimination drives 

was feasible and could reveal more nuanced 

voucher discrimination and how landlords 

discrimination.

perceive voucher holders of different racial 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

62

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

or ethnic backgrounds. As chapter 8 notes, 

recruiting and retaining landlords into the HCV 

program will require more information about what 

drives landlords’ decisions to accept or deny 

voucher holders.

Conclusion

This chapter provided lessons learned from our 

current study and used findings to motivate 

design approaches for future testing studies on 

voucher discrimination. Innovative approaches 

are clearly warranted, given the chal enges 

associated with voucher testing. We expect that 

additional design strategies could be developed 

with additional pilot testing research.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

63

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

64

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

CHAPTER 8: 

because of our need to col ect data from a 

Implications 

representative sample of affordable rental 

housing, but our findings and experience 

conducting tests shed new light on the 

for Policy 

chal enges voucher holders face finding 

housing in the private market. The search 

and Program 

process likely includes reviewing multiple 

advertisements, making numerous telephone 

Changes

calls to reach landlords, facing frequent 

rejection, and, at times, having landlords 

deliberately miss appointments. The 

chal enges have implications for voucher 

Landlords play a critical role in the HCV 

search times and success rates, with some 

program. Will voucher holders find a unit to 

jurisdictions more difficult to navigate than 

lease? How chal enging wil  their housing 

others. The difficult search process may 

search be? Where will their unit be? The 

demoralize voucher holders who hope to 

answers to these questions depend, in part, 

use the program as a path to improved 

on landlord denial rates. As chapter 2 noted, 

neighborhood quality, and the arduous 

PHAs and HUD set the rent and occupancy 

searches and frequent denials likely cost 

requirements that guide individual voucher 

the system valuable resources. For the 

holders’ housing searches, but PHAs do not 

HCV program to function efficiently and 

usually interact with landlords until a potential 

fulfill its goal to help vulnerable families 

unit is identified for a housing quality 

reach opportunity-rich neighborhoods, 

inspection. Voucher holders are largely left to 

policymakers must increase landlord 

their own devices when it comes to finding 

participation, especially in low-poverty 

housing, interacting with landlords, and 

neighborhoods.

successful y using their vouchers. Most PHAs 

determine program eligibility, issue vouchers, 

This final chapter outlines recommendations 

hold orientation sessions for voucher holders, 

to decrease landlord discrimination and 

and then send them to search in the private 

increase landlord participation in the HCV 

market without assistance.

program. Policymakers could take different 

approaches to achieving this critical 

This study sheds new light on voucher 

outcome. They could minimize opportunities 

holders’ experiences during their housing 

for discrimination, make the program more 

searches. Through thousands of tests, we 

streamlined and attractive, or help voucher 

found that landlords routinely deny voucher 

holders navigate the market. Each approach 

holders, making it difficult for them to use 

needs further exploration and evaluation 

their vouchers and find housing—especially 

to understand its potential effects and 

in low-poverty neighborhoods. In the five 

opportunities for testing.

sites we tested, the process of finding an 

available unit, reaching landlords, finding 

Pursue Legal Protections for 

a landlord who accepts vouchers, and 

then meeting landlords in person to look 

Voucher Holders

at available housing was arduous. Our 

Voucher holders are not a protected class 

methodology may not directly mirror an 

under the Fair Housing Act. In most locations 

actual voucher holders’ search experience 

across the country, landlord participation in 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

65

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

the program is voluntary. Although there are 

Encourage Landlord Participation

no protections for voucher holders, there 

are federal fair housing protections for racial 

Another way to increase landlord participation in 

and ethnic minorities, families, and people 

the HCV program is to make it more attractive to 

with disabilities. Many voucher recipients are 

landlords. Doing so will require a combination of 

members of these protected groups, and 

recruiting landlords proactively, ensuring voucher 

voucher protections, or lack thereof, may 

payment standards meet market rents, improving 

disproportionately affect them. The voucher 

program management, and creating incentives 

denials we found for testers perceived as 

for participation in the program.

White mothers and grandmothers suggest that 

Recruit and Attract Landlords, 

baseline discrimination against voucher holders 

as a group is common and pervasive—with 

Particularly in Low-Poverty Areas

potential fair housing implications for not acting 

One way to increase landlord participation 

to address it. 

is to actively identify and recruit landlords 

As we noted in chapter 2, some jurisdictions 

to participate in the program. Recruiting 

have adopted protections for voucher holders 

landlords can be labor intensive; it requires 

through state and local ordinances, usual y 

developing marketing materials and reaching 

including vouchers as a protected source of 

out to associations and large property 

income. Essential y, these protections minimize 

management companies, as well as actively 

landlords’ ability to reject voucher holders 

cultivating relationships and trust with individual 

outright, and they require landlords to consider 

landlords. Some PHAs and neighborhood 

voucher holders, as they would any other 

mobility programs that help voucher holders 

prospective tenant. The empirical evidence 

search for housing have liaisons on staff to 

on source-of-income protections suggests 

target and recruit landlords, specifical y those 

they do not completely eliminate opportunities 

in opportunity neighborhoods. Currently, 

for discrimination and need to be vigorously 

landlord liaisons are limited to a handful of 

enforced. However, they can remove landlords’ 

PHAs nationwide. For example, the King County 

legal ability to turn all voucher holders away 

Housing Authority in Washington state worked 

regardless of whether they are wel -qualified, 

with nonprofit housing providers, as well as the 

reliable tenants.

United Way of King County, the city of Seattle, 

and King County to create the Landlord Liaison 

Among our five study sites, landlord 

Project. This partnership provides landlords 

discrimination against voucher holders was more 

with incentives to participate in the HCV 

common in jurisdictions without protections and 

program, including prescreening prospective 

less common where protections were in place. 

tenants, a risk reduction fund, and a 24-hour 

We also found that landlords discriminate against 

response line (Landlord Liaison Project, 2010). 

voucher holders even where it is il egal to do 

The typical PHA, however, does not have 

so. We did not design this study to measure the 

resources to devote to marketing or outreach 

effectiveness or impact of source-of-income 

or the flexibility to designate staff to liaison 

protections and consequently, we cannot predict 

activities. HUD can include these activities 

the potential effect that protections might have 

as an administrative cost or provide outreach 

on voucher discrimination. However, the patterns 

funds. Alternatively, HUD can fund pilot 

identified in our five study sites, coupled with 

programs through a combination of federal and 

existing evidence in the literature, suggest 

philanthropic support to test liaison activities for 

that protections may improve HCV program 

HCV programs.

outcomes and merit further consideration.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

66

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

Ensure Voucher Payment Standards 

Explore Financial Incentives for 

Meet Market Rents

Landlords

For vouchers to appeal to private market 

In addition to ensuring rents are in line with the 

landlords, they must offer rent payments 

market, HUD and PHAs could strengthen the 

comparable with the market. This study did 

financial incentives (or remove the perceived 

not examine the role of payment standards or 

disincentives) for landlords to participate in 

FMRs in the availability of voucher-affordable 

the program. For example, PHAs could offer 

housing or in landlord denial rates. As chapter 

landlords one-time signing bonuses or tax 

4 discussed, many reasons could explain the 

incentives for joining the HCV program or for 

availability of voucher-affordable housing. 

being in low-poverty neighborhoods. Some 

We do observe, however, that the lowest 

jurisdictions are piloting initiatives that provide 

voucher denial rates correspond with areas 

security deposits or insurance against damages 

that had higher FMRs (50 percent instead of 

or tenants vacating the unit before the lease 

40 percent in Philadelphia and Washington, 

expires.46 Other jurisdictions are waiving permit 

D.C.), particularly with the one site where 

fees for repairs or improvements, or providing 

neighborhood-level payment standards ranged 

landlords with access to interest-free loans to 

from approximately 80 to 130 percent of FMR 

rehabilitate their properties. For example, the 

(Washington, D.C.).

Marin Housing Authority’s Landlord Partnership 

Program provides landlords with a security 

Adopting SAFMRs could expand the availability 

deposit of up to $2,500 per family, loss mitigation 

of voucher-affordable housing in higher cost 

if the property is damaged, vacancy loss if the 

areas and reduce the availability of voucher-

voucher holder vacates early, waived permit fees 

affordable housing in lower cost areas. The 

for building and planning, and a 24-hour hotline 

existing evidence is mixed as to whether the 

and rapid response to landlord concerns.47 

net effect of this shift would be an increase 

Despite some promising experiments with these 

or a decrease in the total number of voucher-

approaches, policymakers have limited data 

affordable units. It is also important to consider 

on how well these programs work and should 

possible interaction effects between the 

consider testing and rigorously evaluating some 

voucher discrimination observed in this study 

of these approaches through the Moving to 

and the implementation of SAFMRs. On the one 

Work expansion, which will provide 100 PHAs 

hand, SAFMRs should make vouchers more 

with policy and funding flexibility to test changes 

appealing to landlords in high-cost areas and 

to the HCV program in the interest of better 

perhaps reduce the voucher discrimination 

program performance.

we observed. On the other hand, voucher 

discrimination might make it difficult for voucher 

Improve Program Management

holders to rent in higher cost areas, even with 

SAFMRs. Careful analysis and implementation 

Critics of the HCV program argue that landlords 

of SAFMRs or neighborhood-level payment 

have good business reasons not to participate. 

standards, including attention to implementation 

These reasons include complaints about PHAs 

at the PHA level, is needed to ensure SAFMRs 

that have poor customer service or that increase 

enable voucher holders to reach units in higher 

the cost of renting to voucher holders by taking 

rent areas.

too long to complete housing quality standards 

inspections and by not sending rent checks on 

46  See, for example, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, “Security Deposit Program, ” https://www.hacosantacruz.org/security-deposit-program/, 

or Connecticut Department of Housing, “Security Deposit Guarantee Program,” http://www.ct.gov/doh/cwp/view.asp?a=4513&q=530588.

47  Marin Housing Authority, “Landlord Partnership Program,” https://www.marinhousing.org/landlord-partnership-program.html.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

67

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

time. To increase customer satisfaction among 

Currently, all voucher holders are al owed an 

landlords and decrease the real or perceived 

initial search period of 60 days, with individual 

costs of doing business with housing authorities, 

PHAs able to grant extensions as they deem 

PHAs must ensure they are streamlining tasks 

appropriate (HUD, 2009).43 HUD’s  Housing 

so that landlords are not financial y penalized 

Choice Voucher Program Guidebook instructs 

for participating in the program. Some PHAs 

PHAs to consider the following when granting 

have improved their business relationships 

and setting a time frame for extensions to 

with landlords by expediting inspections or 

voucher holders—the tightness of the local 

paying rent by electronic deposit. Even with 

housing market, the approximate time spent on 

strong customer service, participating in the 

the PHA’s waiting list, the voucher holder’s level 

program may not always make financial sense 

of effort in searching for housing, the voucher 

for landlords, whose goal is to make a profit 

holder’s chances of finding a unit, the support 

by renting their units. The authors of a three-

services needed, and any circumstances that 

city landlord study (Garboden et al., 2018) 

prevented the family from finding a unit (HUD, 

concluded that, when considering whether 

2009). Whether search times are extended varies 

to accept voucher tenants, landlords weigh 

widely across PHAs. DeLuca, Garboden, and 

different considerations in different rental market 

Rosenblatt (2013) found that the Prichard and 

contexts—but that improving the core aspects 

Mobile PHAs in Alabama almost never granted 

of PHAs’ interactions with landlords, such as 

extensions and noted that PHAs are not required 

inspections and the contract process, would 

to accept an extended search time set by 

encourage participation.

another PHA, which affects searches for voucher 

holders in metropolitan areas with multiple PHAs.

Help Voucher Holders Navigate 

Provide Housing Search Assistance

the Housing Search

Beginning with Chicago’s Gautreaux housing 

Helping voucher holders find housing and 

desegregation program in the 1980s, voucher 

successful y use their vouchers, particularly in 

mobility programs have evolved into robust 

opportunity-rich neighborhoods, will require 

services aimed at helping low-income families 

expanded search times, housing search 

reach and remain in low-poverty neighborhoods 

assistance, and better maintained PHA lists of 

(Galvez, 2017). These programs, however, 

available housing.

remain uncommon. The Poverty and Race 

Expand Search Time

Research Action Council identifies only 15 

mobility programs as of 2015, with most the 

As this study shows, finding a landlord wil ing 

result of settlements from desegregation lawsuits 

to rent to a voucher holder can be extremely 

(Berdahl-Baldwin, 2015). A 2010 scan of 11 

difficult. Extending search times from 60 to 120 

programs found that PHA efforts vary widely in 

days would provide voucher holders more time 

the services they provide but typical y offer a 

to identify landlords with units available. This 

combination of pre and postmove counseling, 

additional search time is particularly important 

move assistance, landlord outreach, and financial 

if voucher holders are searching for housing in 

support for moves (Cunningham et al., 2010). 

opportunity neighborhoods or in tight markets, 

Our findings on the difficulty identifying landlords 

where units are harder to find. In their success 

who accept vouchers—particularly in low-

rate study, Finkel and Buron (2001) found that the 

poverty areas—coupled with the evidence base 

national average search time was 83 days and 

on the importance of living in high-opportunity 

nearly one-fourth of voucher-holder households 

neighborhoods, highlights the importance of 

took more than 120 days to find housing.

housing search assistance.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

68

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

Improve the Quality of Public Housing 

discriminate against voucher holders at high 

Authority Lists

rates. Voucher holders who want to find housing 

in an opportunity area—perhaps close to high-

PHAs commonly maintain lists of available 

quality schools, jobs, and transportation—face a 

housing units that accept vouchers, and voucher 

higher mountain to climb. They will find landlords 

holders may rely on these lists for information 

in low-poverty areas are less likely to accept 

about available housing. Researchers and 

vouchers. We learned that even if landlords 

housing advocates often note these lists mainly 

said they accepted vouchers, they may treat 

include units in higher poverty neighborhoods 

voucher holders differently during apartment 

that already have concentrations of voucher 

showings—standing them up at higher rates than 

holders. For example, DeLuca, Garboden, 

non-voucher holders. Landlords who accept 

and Rosenblatt (2013) found that more than 

vouchers, however, do not screen voucher 

95 percent of the landlords on voucher lists 

holders as heavily as they do other apartment 

from Mobile and Prichard housing authorities 

seekers, who they are more likely to ask about 

were both in medium- or high-poverty—and 

income and employment. This differential vetting 

highly segregated—neighborhoods. They also 

behavior is likely because the subsidy provides 

found that PHA staff did not normal y urge 

some guarantee of payment. This finding 

voucher holders to look for housing in low-

suggests some landlords are interested in renting 

poverty neighborhoods; they suggested that 

to voucher holders and may specifical y market 

this tendency is at least partly because those 

their apartments to them.

increased search times would decrease the 

PHAs’ success rates. In conjunction with landlord 

We learned that local context matters. Voucher 

outreach, PHAs can help voucher holders by 

denial rates varied significantly among the 

improving their lists of available units. HUD and 

five sites. Although we cannot say why with 

PHAs can also work to improve the quality and 

certainty, a clear pattern emerged. Sites with 

reporting of success rate and search time data, 

local source-of-income protections and higher 

to more precisely track this important measure of 

rent caps had more landlords saying they accept 

voucher holders’ ability to secure housing.

vouchers. Other factors, including housing 

market tightness and PHA performance, are also 

Conclusion

worthy of consideration as key factors that affect 

landlord decisions. More research on voucher 

This five-site study is the largest, most 

discrimination is necessary to understand these 

comprehensive test of voucher discrimination 

patterns and their drivers. Further, although 

conducted to date, providing rigorous, 

we learned about landlord perspectives by 

quantitative data on the prevalence of landlord 

listening to them and observing their behaviors, 

discrimination and on ways landlords treat 

policymakers need more research on how 

voucher holders differently than similar 

landlords view participation in the HCV program.

prospective tenants. We learned that finding 

In designing and conducting nearly 4,000 tests 

an available unit, reaching landlords, finding a 

during 16 months, we also gleaned lessons 

landlord to accept vouchers, and then meeting 

for housing policy—particularly related to 

with that landlord to view the housing, was 

improving the HCV program. We recommend 

extremely difficult. It takes a lot of work to find 

that policymakers pursue legal protections for 

housing with a voucher. The search requires 

voucher holders; do more to recruit landlords, 

sifting through numerous advertisements, 

particularly those in low-poverty areas (this 

making numerous calls, and facing frequent 

recruitment may include offering financial 

rejection. Our study revealed that landlords 

incentives and improving management of the 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

69

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

HCV program); set rents to better reflect the 

local market using smal er area comparisons; 

and provide voucher holders with more time 

to search and with assistance finding units in 

opportunity areas. 

The HCV program is the United States’ primary 

vehicle for providing housing assistance, serving 

more than 2 mil ion households. The program 

is critical for ensuring housing affordability, but 

it is not realizing its promise. More could be 

done to ensure the program helps households 

reach opportunity-rich neighborhoods, places 

that could improve their lives. Our findings are a 

reminder that landlords are not passive actors in 

the HCV program. They have incredible power in 

deciding if voucher holders can use their housing 

assistance and where they can live. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

70

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

APPENDIX A:

Appendix  T

 A: e

 T chnic

echni al

cal A

 A ppend

ppendi i

x x

This appendix describes in detail the methodology for the pilot study of voucher discrimination. Testing procedures are described first, followed by the sampling approach. 

Testing Procedures 

Testing procedures are discussed in subsections covering stages of testing, field operations 

management, data collection oversight, quality control, tester recruitment and hiring, tester training, and tester profiles. 

Stages of Testing 

Testing for the voucher discrimination study was conducted from April 2016 through July 2017. The 

following steps were used to complete the voucher acceptance and paired telephone and in-person tests. 

Each step corresponds with specific test forms or guidance documents. Al  testing procedures used by 

test coordinators and testers are described in appendix G. Test coordinator resources are included as 

appendix H. All test report forms are included as appendix I. 

AD VERIFICATION AND VOUCHER ACCEPTANCE TEST 

Testers perceived as being non-Hispanic White (in name and voice) were responsible for making initial 

contact with landlords to verify the availability and eligibility of sampled rental housing. 

The testers for the initial contact and voucher acceptance tests portrayed single female voucher 

holders with children between the ages of 7 and 12, and the number of children depended on the 

housing’s number of bedrooms. Testers asked the landlord if he or she accepted vouchers after verifying 

unit availability and eligibility. Initial contact in response to advertisements was made via telephone if possible, by e-mail if no telephone number was listed, or by electronic contact form if no telephone 

number or e-mail address was listed. If landlords asked to be contacted via text message, testers were 

allowed to do so but were encouraged to minimize communication via text and speak via telephone 

whenever possible. 

To reach the landlord, the tester could make up to three telephone calls (without leaving a message). 

If the ad did not include a telephone number, the tester could send one e-mail or submit one electronic 

contact form. If the landlord could not be reached within 24 hours of the first attempted e-mail or 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

71

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

electronic contact, the ad was dropped from testing. If the housing was found to be available and eligible, the advertisement was assigned to a voucher acceptance test. The information obtained from the voucher 

acceptance test was then recorded on the advance contact form. While completing the form, project staff 

identified the public housing authority (PHA) with jurisdiction at the address of the advertised unit. The location of the advertised unit was also identified as either a high- or a low-poverty census tract. 

During the voucher acceptance test, the tester confirmed and recorded the following information. 

n 

The exact date that the advertised housing was available (and, if the advertised housing was no 

longer available, what housing was available and when). 

n 

The price of the available rental housing. 

n 

The number of bedrooms in each available rental unit, focusing exclusively on two- and three-

bedroom units (if none were available, then the ad was deemed ineligible). 

n 

The exact address of each available rental unit. 

n 

Whether an appointment was required and office hours. 

n 

Landlord comments about the PHA, voucher program, or voucher holders. 

CREATION OF PAIRED TEST ASSIGNMENTS FOR UNITS THAT ACCEPTED VOUCHERS 

Local test coordinators used information recorded on the advance contact form to make credible paired-

test assignments for units that accepted vouchers. Testers were matched on personal, financial, and 

household characteristics. Al  paired testers were female, matched on race or ethnicity and age (within 3 

to 5 years), and portrayed mothers or grandmothers with one to four children or grandchildren. The test 

authorization form   specified the order in which each tester in the pair would contact the landlord, and the project’s online data collection system randomly assigned which tester would portray a voucher holder. A one-on-one briefing session preceded each new test assignment, with the test coordinators providing 

testers with a rental assignment form and detailed instructions that reminded testers of the key testing protocols. 

Testers designated as voucher holders were assigned household incomes based on the voucher-

eligible income for each site (30 to 40 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]). Control testers’ household incomes were based on the same percentage of AMI assigned to the voucher-holding tester plus the 

estimated value of the voucher. Testers posing as voucher holders were also provided with information 

about the amount of their voucher, including their current total tenant payment (voucher holder’s share of the rent) and housing assistance payment (housing authority’s share of the rent). Testers were instructed to refuse any type of credit check, but they could respond to inquiries about their credit or their standing as a tenant by saying they had good credit and no problems with their rental history. Otherwise, voucher A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

1 

72

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

holders were assigned the same or slightly better qualifications than the control testers (for example, 

longer time at current residence, longer time on the job). 

INITIAL LANDLORD CONTACT FOR PAIRED TELEPHONE TESTS 

As in the voucher acceptance tests, testers conducting paired telephone tests called landlords if a 

telephone number was provided in the advertisement. If no telephone number was provided, testers used 

e-mail or an electronic contact form. The initial contacts with landlords were assigned by test coordinators and were typically made 1 to 6 hours apart and never more than 24 hours apart. Following every attempt 

to schedule an appointment and obtain information about available housing, a tester completed an 

appointment contact form. 

PAIRED TELEPHONE TESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HOUSING AND APPOINTMENT 

Once a tester made contact with a landlord, the paired telephone tests captured detailed information 

about available housing that met the testers’ needs, as well as any requests for information or 

qualifications. If testers did not initially reach a person who could provide information about available housing, they asked to be connected to someone who had that information. At the outset of the 

conversation, testers designated as voucher holders conveyed their status to the landlord. Testers then 

tried to obtain the following information about each available unit: number of bedrooms, rent, date of 

availability, lease length (all available), utilities included (if any), exact address, amount of the security deposit (if any), whether an application was required, the amount of the application fee (if any), whether a credit check was required, and other fees (if any). Testers began the completion of a telephone report 

form within 1 hour of the call. If testers obtained information about available housing, they also completed an available rental unit form (telephone version). Tests in which both testers were able to make an 

appointment to view available, eligible housing proceeded to an in-person test. 

PAIRED IN-PERSON TESTS/REQUESTS FOR HOUSING 

Testers who were assigned vouchers disclosed their status at the beginning of the in-person visit, 

regardless of whether the landlord was the same person they spoke with on the telephone. The testers 

attempted to obtain the same information about available housing as during the telephone contact. They 

also recorded additional information on the interior and exterior physical conditions of the units. Within 1 

hour following the site visit, testers completed the site visit report form and the available rental unit form (site visit version). Al  forms and notes were handed in to the test coordinators during the debriefing 

session. If a tester received followup contact of any kind from a landlord within 14 days of the site visit, the tester completed a followup contact form. 

2 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

73

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

The data collected during a tester’s interaction with the landlord generally fell into one of two 

indicators: those that were used to ensure test protocols were followed and those that were used to 

measure and analyze differential treatment. Data collected throughout the process were used for quality 

control measures by the field operations team. 

Field Operations Management 

The study’s field operations team used the same essential management structure as that used in all 

housing discrimination studies conducted by the Urban Institute since 2011. The team has now overseen 

the successful completion of more than 14,000 paired tests in more than 40 metropolitan areas. For this 

study, the director of field operations supervised onsite regional coordinators, project staff, and voucher acceptance testers, as well as test coordinators and testers based in each site where paired testing was conducted. Although the sampling and voucher acceptance tests were conducted on site at Urban for all 

five pilot sites, the following local testing organizations conducted paired telephone and in-person tests. 

n 

Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey (Newark, New Jersey). 

n 

Fair Housing Foundation (Los Angeles, California). 

n 

North Texas Fair Housing Center (Fort Worth, Texas). 

A pool of 8 testers conducted the voucher acceptance tests, and 101 testers conducted the paired 

telephone and in-person tests. There were 39 Black testers, 39 White testers, and 23 Hispanic testers 

who completed tests. 

Data Collection Oversight 

Two experienced regional coordinators helped supervise and train the onsite ad sampling team and 

voucher acceptance testers, and they also oversaw the day-to-day efforts of the local testing 

organizations. The regional coordinators helped ensure the team adhered to project guidelines and 

timeframes. Their responsibilities included— 

n 

Developing project materials, including training manuals and resources. 

n 

Training project staff, local test coordinators, and testers (voucher acceptance testers as well as 

testers conducting paired tests) via in-person training sessions and webinars on sampling and 

testing protocols, as well as on the details of the voucher program. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

3 

74

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

n 

Overseeing tester recruitment. 

n 

Overseeing testing and test report preparation through frequent contact with local test 

coordinators, including a weekly meeting with each site. 

If a significant issue arose during data collection, the regional coordinators worked with the director of field operations to ascertain the extent of the challenge and determine the required response. The 

regional coordinators documented any detection risks or concerning events via an incident report due at 

the end of any day when such an issue arose. The report included the identification of all relevant issues as well as whether the field operations team needed to take any further action. 

In addition to the daily incident reports, the regional coordinators completed weekly site reports with 

summaries of each site’s number of completed tests, descriptions of any questions or issues that arose 

during the week, and what actions were taken. The field operations team met at least once each week to 

discuss the progress of all the sites, brainstorm possible solutions to field challenges, and share 

examples of best practices across sites. 

Quality Control 

To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data collected, the study used the Central Online Data 

Entry (CODE) system. CODE was first designed for housing discrimination studies in 2000 and has been 

used on each subsequent Urban Institute study. The system was tailored for the voucher discrimination 

study to enhance its efficiency and to accommodate new sampling techniques, research protocols, tester 

forms, and tracking reports. CODE’s integrated test assignment, data entry, and test management tools 

reduce errors with built-in consistency checks and streamline data management, cleaning, and analysis. 

Each CODE user was assigned a unique identification number and was granted a different level of 

access to testing forms depending on the user’s role (that is, tester, test coordinator, regional coordinator, or CODE administrator). Each test was also assigned a unique control number that allowed CODE to 

capture and log all activities within the system, which helped ensure data security. CODE created the 

control number when the project team completed a test authorization form for a sampled advertisement. 

The control number was carried through the multistep testing process for each form associated with the 

test. 

Within 1 hour following each completed phase of their test assignment, testers logged into CODE and 

completed the corresponding tester forms. Local test coordinators then conducted an immediate and 

thorough review of the testers’ forms and confirmed they were completed. The field operations team 

continually monitored data in CODE to assess project staff, tester, and test coordinator adherence to 

4 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

75

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

reporting requirements and progress toward testing targets. Because CODE allows project staff to 

monitor data quality in real time, regional coordinators provided immediate feedback and could also 

quickly identify any instances of missing or incomplete data. 

Tester Recruitment and Hiring 

Supported by regional coordinators based at Urban, local testing organizations were responsible for 

recruiting, interviewing, and hiring testers to conduct paired telephone and in-person tests for this study. 

As in other recent housing discrimination studies, in anticipation of attrition, project staff recruited 15 to 20 

percent more testers than they deemed necessary to meet their targets. Testers are most likely to leave a project after the tester training session (when testers learn how detailed the protocols are) and after they conduct their first practice test (when some testers realize they may be uncomfortable portraying 

assigned but untrue characteristics). Local testing organizations conducted outreach to numerous 

community organizations to recruit Hispanic, White, and Black testers, depending on the testing 

conducted in their metropolitan areas. 

Local testing organizations conducted in-person interviews with prospective tester candidates to 

determine whether an applicant could be selected. During the interview, project staff tried to determine whether applicants were comfortable maintaining confidentiality about the study (essential to any testing project) and objectivity. Testers had to be able to make fair and honest assessments of their testing 

experiences without making assumptions about landlord behavior. Project staff also conveyed to 

applicants the importance of following test protocols and remaining neutral, even if they should encounter treatment that might be considered discriminatory. 

When selecting testers for the study, project staff considered their ability to form tester pairs based on key characteristics, such as race or ethnicity and age. In addition, based on applicants’ schedules, 

coordinators determined whether prospective tester pairs would be available to conduct tests within the 

required timeframes. 

Housing discrimination studies since 2012 have conducted identifiability analyses to assess the 

likelihood that a landlord perceives a tester’s assigned race or ethnicity based on the tester’s name and recorded voice (testers read a short prepared script) as well as a standardized photograph. The approach used in this study is discussed in appendix E. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

5 

76

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

Tester Training 

Testers selected to participate in the voucher discrimination study completed a thorough tester training program that included a training session (conducted in person or via webinar) and a series of supervised telephone calls to landlords. The 6-hour training session covered the entire testing process, including the completion of data collection forms. The training session was an opportunity to discuss any questions 

before testers conducted their first test. Housing discrimination tester trainings included role plays, short film clips, and pop quizzes to increase tester engagement and reinforce key protocols. Because all testers needed to credibly portray voucher holders, the training session also included a primer on the voucher 

program itself, which covered— 

n 

The voucher program’s purpose and local-level implementation. 

n 

Eligibility requirements for voucher holders. 

n 

Portability. 

n 

The voucher search timeline. 

n 

Unit inspections. 

n 

Utility allowances. 

n 

Payment standards, total tenant portion, and housing assistance payment. 

n 

Occupancy guidelines. 

Testers also met with test coordinators one on one during the briefing and debriefing before and after 

each test, including the initial practice test, to review checklists and report forms and ensure the protocol had been mastered. Testers could describe any challenges that arose while conducting a test and receive 

feedback from the test coordinator about what issues needed to be addressed. 

Tester Profiles 

Aside from race or ethnicity, the household and financial characteristics assigned to testers were 

established to closely match those of households that actually receive housing vouchers.  

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 

HUD data reveal that 91 percent of voucher households occupy rental units with one, two, or three 

bedrooms. Almost one-half (45 percent) of all vouchers go to female-headed households with children 

(HUD, 2016). In the testing sites and nationally, a large proportion of voucher households (79 percent) 

are female headed and about one-half of all voucher households had children. Accordingly, testing was 

6 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

77

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

confined to female-headed households with children responding to rental ads for two- or three-bedroom 

units (see section 2 for household characteristics). We decided to confine testing to female-headed 

households because this household type is disproportionately represented in the voucher program.  

Children assigned to a household were assigned ages between 7 and 12 years old. Eliminating 

children age 6 and younger meant that prospective landlords did not need to comply with additional lead 

safety requirements before turning over the unit. Additionally, because the presence of teenagers could 

affect the wil ingness of landlords to rent to a family, having older children was avoided. Tests were 

assigned one of a number of household compositions, all led by single women with children or 

grandchildren in their households (table A.1).  

We verified the PHA occupancy standards regarding households with children for each site to 

determine the appropriate assignment of children’s genders and avoid potential complications or landlord concerns with voucher occupancy standards.  

COUNTERFACTUAL INCOME 

One important and unique aspect to this study was the need to account for the value of the voucher in the income of the counterfactual tester. Voucher receipt is effectively an increase in a household’s available income for housing. It would be inappropriate to hold the incomes of the paired testers constant at 

prevoucher levels, with one tester in possession of a voucher. The purpose of the voucher was to allow 

low-income households to reach housing that would otherwise be unaffordable to them. Testing voucher 

holders against households of the same prevoucher income—and attempting to rent units that were 

affordable to the voucher holder because of the voucher subsidy—would present an unaffordable rental 

situation for the counterfactual tester and place that household at a clear disadvantage in the eyes of the landlord. If the counterfactual tester’s potential rent burden were to be set unrealistically high, landlords may reject the tester on that basis. Any observed differential treatment might simply reflect the financial disparity between two potential tenants, rather than possession of a voucher.  

However, setting the counterfactual income too high compared with the voucher holder’s prevoucher 

or voucher-subsidized income could create a scenario in which landlords were presented a relatively 

wealthy household without a voucher and a low-income household with some voucher income. Landlord 

preference for the counterfactual household could in this scenario be attributed to the counterfactual 

household’s relative wealth, and not the landlord’s aversion to the voucher. Either scenario would provide biased estimates of discrimination against voucher holders.  

Because of these factors, control testers were assigned an annual income equal to the voucher-

eligible income for each study site, plus the approximate annual value of the voucher subsidy. This 

approach provided the counterfactual tester sufficient income to rent the unit and to have a housing 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

7 

78

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

budget comparable to that of the voucher holder, but not so much income as to place the counterfactual 

household in a higher socioeconomic class.  

Specifically, the appropriate baseline income for the voucher holder and counterfactual tester was 

based on 30 percent of AMI for each test site. The total annual value of the voucher based on the 

approximate housing assistance payment for a household at 30 percent of AMI was then estimated, 

adjusting for the presence of children in the household. The total value of the annual housing assistance payment was then added to the baseline income to establish the counterfactual tester income. In effect, 

the voucher and counterfactual testers had the same income, but from different sources. This approach 

also resulted in the counterfactual testers facing gross rent burdens comparable to the voucher-holder 

households’. We examined rent burdens for low-income households in each study site to ensure that we 

did not establish unrealistic counterfactual renter profiles. Table A.2 provides an example using eligibility guidelines and payment standards for one of the sites. 

TABLE A.1 

Household Composition 

One Child

Two Children

Three Children

Four Children

2

1

1 Girl

2

1 Girl

2

3

Girls

Girl

and

Girls

and

Girls

Girls

or

and

and

and

and

1

1

2

1

2

1 Boy

3

3

3

2

1 Boy

4

Test site

Girl

Boy

Boys

Boy

Boys

Girls

Boys

Boys

Boys

Girls

4 Boys

Fort Worth

Arlington

n/a

n/a

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Fort Worth

n/a

n/a

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Tarrant County

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Los Angeles

All PHAs

n/a

n/a

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Newark

All PHAs

n/a

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Philadelphia

Bucks County

n/a

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Philadelphia

2br

2br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

n/a

3br

n/a

3br

3br

Washington, DC

Montgomery County

2br

2br

2br

2br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

3br

Washington, DC

2br

2br

2br

n/a

3br

3br

3br

3br

n/a

3br

n/a

3br

3br

2br = two-bedroom rental unit; 3br = three-bedroom rental unit; PHA = public housing authority; N/a = not applicable.  

Note: Our testing included exclusively two- and three-bedroom units. In some sites, some configurations of families would be eligible for one- and four-bedroom units. We did not use these family configurations for tester profiles. This in indicated in the table by n/a. 

8 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

79

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

TABLE A.2 

Sample Calculation of Counterfactual Income for Two- and Three-Bedroom Households 

Two-Person Household  

Three-Person Household  

 In Two Bedroom

In Two Bedroom

In Three Bedroom

A  HCV eligibility based on 30%   $  19,600.00   A  HCV eligibility based on 30%   $  22,050.00   A  HCV eligibility based on 30%   $  22,050.00  

AMI − yearly income limit  

AMI − yearly income limit 

AMI − yearly income limit  

B  Adjusted annual voucher 

 $  19,120.00   B  Adjusted annual voucher 

 $  21,090.00   B  Adjusted annual voucher 

 $  21,090.00  

incomea (A − 480) 

incomea = (A − (480 × 2))  

incomea = (A − (480 × 2))  

C  Monthly PHA payment 

 $  1,443.00  

C  Monthly PHA payment 

 $  1,443.00  

C  Monthly PHA payment 

 $  1,939.00  

standard (2br) 

standard (2br) 

standard (3br) ^ 

D  Est. monthly tenant shareb =    $   478.00  

D  Est. monthly tenant shareb 3 

 $   527.25  

D  Est. monthly tenant shareb 3 

 $   527.25  

(B ÷ 12) × 0.30 

person = (B ÷ 12) × 0.30 

person = (B ÷ 12) × 0.30 

E  Annual voucher value if unit 

 $  11,580.00   E  Annual voucher value 3 

 $  10,989.00   E  Annual voucher value if unit 

 $  16,941.00  

rent equal to payment 

person if unit rent equal to 

rent equal to payment 

standard for 2br = (C − D) × 

payment standard for 2br = 

standard for 3br = (C − D) × 

12 

(C − D) × 12 

12 

F  Annual gross voucher tester 

 $  19,600.00   F  Annual gross voucher tester 

 $  22,050.00   F  Annual gross voucher tester 

 $  22,050.00  

income for 2-person HH in 

income for 3-person HH in 

income for 3-person HH in 

2br  

2br  

3br  

( = A )  

( = A ) 

( = A )  

G  Annual gross control tester 

 $  31,180.00   G  Annual gross control tester 

 $  33,039.00   G  Annual gross control tester 

 $  38,991.00  

income for 2-person HH in 

income for 3-person HH in 

income for 3-person HH in 

2br  

2br  

3br  

( = E + F) 

( = E + F) 

( = E + F) 

Sources: FY 2014 Fair Market Rent: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html; FY 2014 income limits: 30% of AMI (“extremely low income”) household income limits: 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmr_il_history.html. 

Notes: A 2-person household is 1 female adult and 1 male child; a 3-person household is 1 female adult and 1 male and 1 female child. Sample calculations reflect 2014 Fair Market Rents and income limits but are for il ustrative purposes only; appropriate income limits were used for actual tester profiles. 

a. Adjusted annual voucher income = gross income minus $480 deduction per child. 

b. Also known as  total tenant payment; for this example, based on 30 percent of monthly adjusted income. 

AMI = area median income; br = bedroom; HCV = Housing Choice Voucher; HH = household; PHA = public housing authority A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

80

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

Sampling  

The sampling approach in this pilot study involved establishing testing targets for the voucher acceptance tests and manually searching for publicly available ads in each ZIP Code included in the study sites. Ads for testing were generated by stratified random sampling. Strata were composed of ZIP Codes within the 

five metropolitan sites, with at least one unit at or below the local PHA payment standards (according to 5-year American Community Survey [ACS] data). Available rental units were sampled to achieve target 

numbers of voucher acceptance tests assigned to ZIP Codes, so that the resulting distribution of tests 

matched that of voucher-affordable rental units separately across ZIP Codes in each site.47

48  Special 

tabulations of the combined 5-year ACS (2008–12) provided the data for ZIP Code-based estimates of 

two- and three-bedroom units that were voucher affordable (that is, units whose rent fell below the 

payment standards identified by the appropriate PHA for each ZIP Code in our study sites). The ACS 

percentage distributions across ZIP Codes were used to generate target numbers of voucher acceptance 

tests for each ZIP Code by taking the product of the total number of voucher tests desired for that site and the proportion of the site’s voucher-affordable units within that ZIP Code from the ACS distribution. For instance, if a ZIP Code in Washington, D.C., contained 1 percent of all voucher-affordable units in that site, then that ZIP Code would be assigned a target equal to 1 percent of the voucher acceptance tests. 

And as the overall target number of voucher acceptance tests increased, the targets for that ZIP Code 

were increased proportionately. This strategy allowed independent ad searches for each ZIP Code until 

sufficient eligible ads were generated to achieve the desired target number of voucher tests. The result is a proportionate stratified sample of voucher tests for each site.  

Whereas the number of voucher acceptance tests is proportional to available housing at the ZIP 

Code level, this would not be the case for telephone and in-person tests. The reason is that not all 

voucher acceptance tests result in telephone tests and not al  telephone tests result in in-person tests. 

There is a natural dropoff caused by voucher denial or the unit being rented or otherwise becoming 

unavailable (being rented or withheld to prevent disclosure) in the intervening time between the required sequencing of acceptance, phone, and in-person testing. To the extent that such dropoffs diminish the 

proportionate representation of the remaining phone and in-person tests, the ability to generalize the 

results could arguably come into question. On the other hand, voucher denial is a reality. The rentals that remain for telephone and in-person testing have undergone voucher acceptance testing, just as voucher 

47

48  ZIP Codes in each site with a target of less than one assigned acceptance test were combined to create a ZIP 

Code cluster from which at least one acceptance test was expected.  

10 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

81

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

holders experience when they inquire about voucher acceptance. Thus, units deemed “voucher available” 

could reasonably be seen representing the natural distribution of rentals available to voucher holders after they inquire about housing and discard the rejections they encounter. However, the one remaining, 

unavoidable potential source of sampling bias is the units that were withheld due to threats of tester 

disclosure. 

Returning to the sampling of ads for acceptance testing, some ZIP Codes—mostly those with a small 

number of units at or below the local PHA payment standards—were found to have few or no eligible ads 

for testing. When this occurred, we conducted ad searchers for these ZIP Codes for 4 weeks, then 

suspended for several weeks, and then searched for an additional 4 weeks. At the end of this second 4-

week search period, if no eligible ads were identified for testing, the ZIP Code was retired from the 

sample and no further searching was conducted. The unmet voucher acceptance test targets for these 

ZIP Codes, although small, were not redistributed.  

Considerable uncertainty was associated with conducting paired tests, because a voucher 

acceptance test in which the landlord accepted vouchers had to precede each paired test. If, as we later found to be the case, a high proportion of landlords did not accept vouchers, large numbers of ads would need to be screened and tested to produce a sufficient number of tests to permit analysis. In sites with low voucher acceptance rates, we tried to obtain a sufficient sample for analysis of the paired tests by increasing the number of voucher acceptance tests. However, it turned out to be quite expensive given 

the cost and time required per paired test. As a result, we lowered our goals for the number of paired 

tests in sites with low voucher acceptance rates to reflect this difficulty. The number of voucher 

acceptance tests per site was kept at or above that originally planned. 

Initial targets of tests appear in table A.3. A total of 2,550 voucher tests was targeted, with 425 per 

site allocated to Newark, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., and 638 and 637 assigned to Fort Worth 

and Los Angeles, respectively. Telephone and in-person testing was to be conducted in Fort Worth, Los 

Angeles, and Newark. Soft targets of 300 in-person tests that assumed that roughly one-half of landlords would accept vouchers were assigned to Fort Worth and Los Angeles. In these sites, equal numbers of 

White, Black, and Hispanic paired tests were initially sought. For Newark, a soft target of 200 in-person tests was sought, equally allocated to Black and White testers.  

Table A.4 presents the revised test targets adopted after experience in the field identifying ads for 

testing and facing high denial rates. Voucher acceptance test targets for Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and 

Newark were almost doubled, from 638, 637, and 425 to 1,152, 1,110, and 815, respectively. The in-

person testing soft target for Newark was increased by 85 percent, from 200 to 370. This increase was 

meant to generate additional in-person tests for the one site (Newark) that had a higher rate of voucher acceptance.  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

11 

82

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

TABLE A.3 

Initial Hard and Soft Test Targets by Site and Test Type 

In-Person Tests by Race of Tester

Hard Target: Voucher

Soft Target: Telephone

Pair

Site

Tests

and In-Person Tests

Black

White

Hispanic

Fort Worth, TX

638

300

100

100

100

Los Angeles, CA

637

300

100

100

100

Newark, NJ

425

200

100

100

N/A

Philadelphia, PA

425

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Washington, DC

425

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

2,550

800

300

300

200

Notes: A hard test target represented one that was realistically obtainable; a soft target might or might not be obtainable, depending on the incidence of voucher acceptance and available eligible rental units within a site. The soft targets assumed that approximately 50 percent of landlords would accept vouchers.  

N/A = not applicable. 

TABLE A.4 

Revised Test Targets Based on Field Experience 

In-Person Tests by Race of Tester

Hard Target: Voucher

Soft Target: Telephone

Pair

Site

Tests

and In-Person Tests

Black

White

Hispanic

Fort Worth, TX

1,152

300

100

100

100

Los Angeles, CA

1,110

300

100

100

100

Newark, NJ

815

370

185

185

N/A

Philadelphia, PA

425

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Washington, DC

425

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

3,927

970

385

385

200

Notes: A hard test target represented one that was realistically obtainable; a soft target might or might not be obtainable, depending on the incidence of voucher acceptance and available eligible rental units within a site. 

N/A = not applicable. 

The final number of tests completed by mode and site appears in table A.5. Table A.6 presents the 

initial and final voucher acceptance test targets by site, along with the actual completed acceptance tests and percentages of revised goals achieved. Overall, the study achieved 96 percent of the revised targets.  

12 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

83

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

TABLE A.5 

Actual Completed Voucher Tests by Mode and Site 

In-Person Tests by Race of Tester

Voucher

Telephone

In-Person

Pair

Site

Tests

Tests

Tests

Black

White

Hispanic

Fort Worth, TX

1,146

142

73

18

23

32

Los Angeles, CA

998

126

62

25

25

12

Newark, NJ

782

426

374

188

186

N/A

Philadelphia, PA

422

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Washington, DC

432

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

3,780

694

509

231

234

44

N/A = not applicable. 

TABLE A.6 

Initial and Final Voucher Acceptance Test Targets by Site 

Initial Target

Final Target

Voucher Tests

Percent of Final

Site

Voucher Tests

Voucher Tests

Conducted

Target

Fort Worth, TX

638

1,152

1,146

99

Los Angeles, CA

637

1,110

998

90

Newark, NJ

425

815

782

96

Philadelphia, PA

425

425

422

99

Washington, DC

425

425

432

102

Total

2,550

3,927

3,780

96

Ad Sampling 

Ads were sampled using a manual search process for each ZIP Code in the study, with the objective of 

attaining the assigned target of voucher tests. To accomplish this, each site had a list of ZIP Codes and an associated number of hard-target voucher acceptance tests. Daily, sampling staff were assigned ZIP 

Codes whose targets had not yet been met. Ads were sampled from available rental housing stock within 

each metropolitan area by using the following websites: craigslist.org,49 apartments.com, move.com, 

trulia.com, and zil ow.com. In Los Angeles, socialserve.com was also used. Forrent.com was also used in 

Washington, D.C., Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. Apartmentguide.com and rent.com were also used in 

Newark, Washington, D.C., Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. GoSection8.com, which explicitly includes ads 

49 If craigslist.org was the randomly selected website, project staff initially searched for housing by ZIP Code. If no eligible advertisements were identified, project staff conducted a secondary “place name” search before 

continuing to the next randomly selected housing search website. Project staff used the neighborhood name overlay as well as the place name on Google Maps to identify and then search the place names associated with the target ZIP Code. For example, the place name “Olney” is associated with the Philadelphia ZIP Code 19120. If an eligible ad was found, the project staff would then verify that the address was located in the target ZIP Code. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

13 

84

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

from landlords who accept vouchers, was excluded from the study. The site was excluded for two 

reasons: first, the research team was concerned the website might result in over-representing landlords 

and properties that accept Housing Choice Vouchers; and second, exploratory ad searches of ten zip 

codes using Section8.com suggested that the site was not an effective source for expanding our sample 

of ads in our testing sites. 

To ensure the searches for advertisements were unbiased, project staff were provided randomized 

lists of housing search websites and randomized strings of numbers that determined the order they would 

check websites and screen advertisements. To determine the payment standard for a particular ZIP Code 

or neighborhood, project staff used a mapping tool developed during the design phase of the study to 

confirm the highest possible allowable rent (including exception-area rents for low-poverty areas).  

Ads were screened to ensure that the unit met the following conditions.  

n 

Had two or three bedrooms. 

n 

Was offered at or below voucher payment standard for the geographic area. 

n 

Was located in the appropriate geographic area.  

n 

Was still available for rent. 

n 

Was not otherwise ineligible (for example, was not a sublet or housing for sale). 

The sampling design also featured an adaptive component to ensure that enough voucher tests were 

generated in low-poverty areas of each site. The distribution of voucher tests was continuously monitored by neighborhood poverty status (that is, low poverty versus high poverty). As each ad was sampled, the 

location of housing was geocoded so that neighborhood poverty status could be recorded. If our 

monitoring showed that the number of voucher tests in low-poverty areas was falling short of the 15- to 

25-percent expectation, low-poverty ZIP Codes could be oversampled to boost the number. 

Oversampling was not necessary to meet goals for voucher acceptance tests in low-poverty 

neighborhoods. Table A.7 shows the rental housing eligibility criteria. 

14 

A   P ILO T   A P

S T IL

U ODT S

Y   TU

O D

F Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

85

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

TABLE A.7 

Rental Housing Eligibility 

Eligible

Ineligible

n 

Most furnished and

n 

Automatic reply to advance e-mail contact explaining recipient is away and not

unfurnished rental housing

expected to return in a reasonable amount of time

offered by real estate agents,

n 

E-mail address was invalid (when e-mail address is the only contact information

property management

listed)

companies, and other rental

n 

Exceeds payment standards for test site

housing providers, including

n 

Housing/condos for sale

brokers.

n 

Housing for older persons

n 

Most types of rental housing

n 

Landlord recently tested or tested by al  available testers

structures (for example,

n 

Landlord could not be reached after three cal s

apartments, flats, townhouses,  n 

Landlord does not accept vouchers

condominiums, mobile homes,  n 

Located on Indian land (for example, reservations, rancherías)

duplexes, single-family

n 

No reply to e-mail inquiry/electronic contact within 24 hours

homes).

n 

No two- or three-bedroom units available

n 

No units currently available for rent

n 

Other reasons as determined by the director of field operations (e.g., detection

issues, conflicts with enforcement activities)

n 

Outside target area for metropolitan statistical area

n 

Outside ZIP Code area for test site

n 

Public housing development

n 

Share or roommate situation

n 

Single-room occupancy dwel ings

n 

Sublet

n 

Telephone number was incorrect or no longer in service (when telephone

number is the only contact information listed)

n 

Temporary or short-term rental lease

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

15 

86

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles APPENDIX B: Estimates of 

Differential Treatment During 

Telephone Tests for Fort Worth 

and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

87

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles TABLE B.1  

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests, Fort Worth, Texas 

Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Testers able to obtain information about 

housing 

69.0% 

14.8% 

7.7% 

7.0% 

3.7% 

142 

* 

If testers obtained housing information 

Testers told any units available 

81. 6% 

7.  1% 

0.  0% 

7.  1% 

2.  2% 

98 

*** 

One tester told about more units 

23.5% 

11.2% 

12.2% 

6.2% 

98 

* 

Average number of units told about 

1.22 

1.06 

0.16 

0.07 

98 

** 

Testers able to get an appointment 

92. 5% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

80 

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

93.8% 

0.0% 

6.3% 

-6.3% 

2.5% 

80 

** 

Told a credit check must be completed 

86.3% 

3.8% 

5.0% 

-1.3% 

2.8% 

80 

Told a cosigner is required 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

-1.3% 

1.2% 

80 

Told a background check must be done 

40.0% 

23.8% 

20.0% 

3.8% 

7.4% 

80 

Told an eviction check must be done 

12.5% 

21.3% 

26.3% 

-5.0% 

7.2% 

80 

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

0.0% 

3.8% 

2.5% 

1.3% 

2.9% 

80 

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 

1.3% 

5.0% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

2.6% 

80 

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

0.0% 

7.5% 

2.5% 

5.0% 

2.9% 

80 

* 

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 

12.5% 

20.0% 

15.0% 

5.0% 

5.1% 

80 

Landlord requested income 

2.5% 

8.8% 

5.0% 

3.8% 

4.3% 

80 

Landlord requested source of income 

0.0% 

2.5% 

5.0% 

-2.5% 

3.1% 

80 

Landlord requested occupation 

0.0% 

1.3% 

2.5% 

-1.3% 

2.2% 

80 

Landlord requested employer 

0.0% 

1.3% 

2.5% 

-1.3% 

2.2% 

80 

Landlord requested length of employment 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

80 

Landlord requested credit standing 

0.0% 

6.3% 

11.3% 

-5.0% 

4.2% 

80 

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 

2.5% 

8.8% 

8.8% 

0.0% 

4.4% 

80 

Landlord requested contact information 

23.8% 

15.0% 

7.5% 

7.5% 

4.3% 

80 

 *

Landlord requested other information 

0.0% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

6.3% 

2.6% 

80 

** 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

5.0% 

17.5% 

8.8% 

8.8% 

5.2% 

80 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

1.3% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

80 

Told comment on fair housing 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

80 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

80 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

0.0% 

0.0% 

3.8% 

-3.8% 

2.3% 

80 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

1.3% 

7.5% 

2.5% 

5.0% 

3.9% 

80 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$904 

$942 

-$38 

$13 

78 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

93.6% 

0.0% 

2.6% 

-2.6% 

1.8% 

78 

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 

11.5% 

9.0% 

2.6% 

4.9% 

78 

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

$39 

$40 

-$1 

$3 

78 

Told fees required for any unit 

32. 1% 

3.8% 

7.7% 

-3.8% 

3.7% 

78 

One tester told higher fees 

12.8% 

12.8% 

0.0% 

4.1% 

78 

Average fees for any unit 

$60 

$62 

-$2 

$8 

78 

Told about incentives 

7.  7% 

12.8% 

9.0% 

3.8% 

4.0% 

78 

One tester told higher incentives 

14.1% 

11.5% 

2.6% 

5.0% 

78 

Average incentives 

$117 

$90 

$27 

$37 

78 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

17 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

88

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Told security deposit required 

84.6% 

3.8% 

1.3% 

2.6% 

1.9% 

78 

Average security deposit for any unit 

$503 

$548 

-$44 

$38 

62 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

26.9% 

35.9% 

-9.0% 

8.5% 

78 

Average yearly net cost 

$11,235  $11,716 

-$482 

$164 

78 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.  

18 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

89

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles TABLE B.2  

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Los Angeles, California 

Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Testers able to obtain information about 

housing 

79.4% 

7.1% 

6.3% 

0.8% 

2.4% 

126 

If testers obtained housing information 

Testers told any units available 

75. 0% 

7.  0% 

2.  0% 

5.  0% 

3.  3% 

100 

One tester told about more units 

10.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

4.5% 

100 

Average number of units told about 

0.88 

0.80 

0.08 

0.05 

100 

Testers able to get an appointment 

85. 3% 

5.3% 

5.3% 

0.0% 

3.8% 

75 

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

92.0% 

2.7% 

4.0% 

-1.3% 

2.4% 

75 

Told a credit check must be completed 

93.3% 

2.7% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

2.4% 

75 

Told a cosigner is required 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

75 

Told a background check must be done 

5.3% 

9.3% 

10.7% 

-1.3% 

4.5% 

75 

Told an eviction check must be done 

4.0% 

8.0% 

5.3% 

2.7% 

3.8% 

75 

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

0.0% 

4.0% 

1.3% 

2.7% 

2.6% 

75 

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 

0.0% 

8.0% 

6.7% 

1.3% 

5.6% 

75 

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

1.3% 

5.3% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

2.6% 

75 

** 

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 

24.0% 

16.0% 

5.3% 

10.7% 

5.3% 

75 

* 

Landlord requested income 

0.0% 

10.7% 

1.3% 

9.3% 

4.6% 

75 

* 

Landlord requested source of income 

2.7% 

4.0% 

2.7% 

1.3% 

3.5% 

75 

Landlord requested occupation 

0.0% 

2.7% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

2.3% 

75 

Landlord requested employer 

1.3% 

5.3% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

2.1% 

75 

** 

Landlord requested length of employment 

0.0% 

4.0% 

2.7% 

1.3% 

3.5% 

75 

Landlord requested credit standing 

2.7% 

6.7% 

2.7% 

4.0% 

3.6% 

75 

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 

0.0% 

4.0% 

1.3% 

2.7% 

2.4% 

75 

Landlord requested contact information 

18.7% 

16.0% 

10.7% 

5.3% 

6.9% 

75 

Landlord requested other information 

4.0% 

12.0% 

5.3% 

6.7% 

3.3% 

75 

** 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

1.3% 

8.0% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

3.0% 

75 

** 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

1.3% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

0.0% 

3.3% 

75 

* 

Told comment on fair housing 

0.0% 

2.7% 

0.0% 

2.7% 

1.8% 

75 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

0.0% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

1.1% 

75 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

1.3% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

0.0% 

1.9% 

75 

** 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

1.3% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

-1.3% 

1.3% 

75 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$1,736 

$1,737 

-$1 

$3 

75 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

58.7% 

8.0% 

8.0% 

0.0% 

4.7% 

75 

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 

13.3% 

10.7% 

2.7% 

5.3% 

75 

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

$19 

$39 

-$19 

$17 

75 

Told fees required for any unit 

13. 3% 

12.0% 

8.0% 

4.0% 

5.5% 

75 

One tester told higher fees 

13.3% 

8.0% 

5.3% 

5.6% 

75 

Average fees for any unit 

$50 

$15 

$36 

$21 

75 

Told about incentives 

1.  3% 

4.0% 

1.3% 

2.7% 

2.5% 

75 

One tester told higher incentives 

4.0% 

2.7% 

1.3% 

2.4% 

75 

Average incentives 

$80 

$78 

$3 

$31 

75 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

19 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

90

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Told security deposit required 

92.0% 

6.7% 

1.3% 

5.3% 

3.6% 

75 

Average security deposit for any unit 

$1,895 

$1,865 

$30 

$63 

67 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

33.3% 

13.3% 

20.0% 

6.8% 

75 

*** 

Average yearly net cost 

$22,647  $22,538 

$109 

$92 

75 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.  

20 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

91

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

92

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles APPENDIX C: Estimates of Differential 

Treatment During In-Person Tests for 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

93

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles TABLE C.1  

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Fort Worth, Texas  

Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Testers able to meet with landlord 

97.3% 

2.7% 

0.0% 

2.7% 

1.9% 

73 

If testers able to meet with landlord 

Told any units available 

98. 6% 

1.  4% 

0.  0% 

1.  4% 

1.  5% 

71 

One tester told about more units 

28.2% 

16.9% 

11.3% 

7.9% 

71 

Average number of units told about 

1.73 

1.54 

0.20 

0.14 

71 

If available units recommended 

Inspected units 

61.4% 

4.3% 

7.1% 

-2.9% 

3.5% 

70 

One tester inspected more units 

7.1% 

11.4% 

-4.3% 

5.6% 

70 

Average number of units inspected 

0.71 

0.77 

-0.06 

0.06 

70 

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

98.6% 

1.4% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

70 

Told a credit check must be completed 

88.6% 

5.7% 

0.0% 

5.7% 

2.5% 

70 

** 

Told a cosigner is required 

0.0% 

2.9% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

2.5% 

70 

Told a background check must be done 

50.0% 

24.3% 

17.1% 

7.1% 

5.4% 

70 

Told an eviction check must be done 

21.4% 

22.9% 

24.3% 

-1.4% 

7.0% 

70 

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

5.7% 

10.0% 

15.7% 

-5.7% 

4.0% 

70 

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 

30.0% 

17.1% 

20.0% 

-2.9% 

6.7% 

70 

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

1.4% 

14.3% 

8.6% 

5.7% 

4.7% 

70 

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 

50.0% 

11.4% 

14.3% 

-2.9% 

5.6% 

70 

Landlord requested income 

1.4% 

5.7% 

11.4% 

-5.7% 

5.6% 

70 

Landlord requested source of income 

1.4% 

7.1% 

15.7% 

-8.6% 

7.0% 

70 

Landlord requested occupation 

2.9% 

5.7% 

10.0% 

-4.3% 

4.3% 

70 

Landlord requested employer 

5.7% 

8.6% 

11.4% 

-2.9% 

5.5% 

70 

Landlord requested length of employment 

0.0% 

1.4% 

4.3% 

-2.9% 

3.0% 

70 

Landlord requested credit standing 

5.7% 

4.3% 

15.7% 

-11.4% 

5.2% 

70 

** 

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 

8.6% 

10.0% 

11.4% 

-1.4% 

4.4% 

70 

Landlord requested contact information 

31.4% 

11.4% 

20.0% 

-8.6% 

8.4% 

70 

Landlord requested other information 

0.0% 

10.0% 

1.4% 

8.6% 

3.6% 

70 

** 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

10.0% 

18.6% 

11.4% 

7.1% 

5.9% 

70 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

2.9% 

0.0% 

4.3% 

-4.3% 

2.4% 

70 

 *

Told comment on fair housing 

0.0% 

4.3% 

0.0% 

4.3% 

2.2% 

70 

* 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

0.0% 

1.4% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

70 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

-2.9% 

1.9% 

70 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

4.3% 

8.6% 

5.7% 

2.9% 

4.4% 

70 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$889 

$899 

-$10 

$9 

70 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

2.9% 

4.3% 

2.9% 

1.4% 

3.3% 

69 

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 

4.3% 

2.9% 

1.4% 

3.3% 

69 

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

$9 

$8 

$1 

$7 

70 

Told fees required for any unit 

97. 1% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

-1.4% 

1.5% 

69 

One tester told higher fees 

18.8% 

15.9% 

2.9% 

5.9% 

69 

Average fees for any unit 

$141 

$133 

$8 

$28 

70 

22 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

94

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Told about incentives 

13.0% 

20.3% 

8.7% 

11.6% 

5.7% 

69 

* 

One tester told higher incentives 

24.6% 

14.5% 

10.1% 

6.8% 

69 

Average incentives 

$189 

$142 

$47 

$43 

70 

Told security deposit required 

79. 7% 

10.1% 

1.4% 

8.7% 

3.7% 

69 

** 

Average security deposit for any unit 

$446 

$506 

-$59 

$36 

55 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

29.0% 

42.0% 

-13.0% 

11.8% 

69 

Average yearly net cost 

$11,011  $11,189 

-$178 

$128 

70 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

23 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

95

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles TABLE C.2  

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Los Angeles, California 

Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

Testers able to meet with landlord 

71.0% 

14.5% 

9.7% 

4.8% 

6.7% 

62 

If testers able to meet with landlord 

Told any units available 

90. 9% 

4.  5% 

0.  0% 

4.  5% 

3.  5% 

44 

One tester told about more units 

4.5% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

4.4% 

44 

Average number of units told about 

1.00 

1.00 

0.00 

0.06 

44 

If available units recommended 

Inspected units 

97.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

One tester inspected more units 

2.5% 

0.0% 

2.5% 

1.8% 

40 

Average number of units inspected 

1.03 

1.00 

0.03 

0.02 

40 

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

100.0%  0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

Told a credit check must be completed 

95.0% 

0.0% 

5.0% 

-5.0% 

3.6% 

40 

Told a cosigner is required 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

Told a background check must be done 

2.5% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

0.0% 

7.3% 

40 

Told an eviction check must be done 

5.0% 

10.0% 

2.5% 

7.5% 

5.2% 

40 

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

7.5% 

7.5% 

15.0% 

-7.5% 

7.4% 

40 

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 

32.5% 

10.0% 

20.0% 

-10.0% 

8.2% 

40 

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

0.0% 

5.0% 

0.0% 

5.0% 

2.8% 

40 

* 

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 

45.0% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

0.0% 

7.3% 

40 

Landlord requested income 

5.0% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

2.5% 

2.7% 

40 

Landlord requested source of income 

5.0% 

5.0% 

7.5% 

-2.5% 

4.0% 

40 

Landlord requested occupation 

0.0% 

7.5% 

7.5% 

0.0% 

3.6% 

40 

Landlord requested employer 

10.0% 

7.5% 

7.5% 

0.0% 

5.1% 

40 

Landlord requested length of employment 

2.5% 

7.5% 

10.0% 

-2.5% 

6.0% 

40 

Landlord requested credit standing 

0.0% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

0.0% 

6.3% 

40 

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.5% 

-2.5% 

2.7% 

40 

Landlord requested contact information 

22.5% 

12.5% 

10.0% 

2.5% 

10.1% 

40 

Landlord requested other information 

5.0% 

10.0% 

12.5% 

-2.5% 

6.7% 

40 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

0.0% 

7.5% 

5.0% 

2.5% 

4.3% 

40 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

Told comment on fair housing 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

0.0% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

2.5% 

2.6% 

40 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.5% 

-2.5% 

2.7% 

40 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

0.0% 

2.5% 

5.0% 

-2.5% 

2.7% 

40 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$1,785 

$1,783 

$2 

$1 

40 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

0.0% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

3.6% 

40 

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 

2.5% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

3.6% 

40 

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 

$9 

$1 

$8 

$9 

40 

Told fees required for any unit 

80. 0% 

5.0% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

4.4% 

40 

One tester told higher fees 

20.0% 

15.0% 

5.0% 

8.7% 

40 

Average fees for any unit 

$73 

$39 

$34 

$33 

40 

Told about incentives 

0.  0% 

0.0% 

5.0% 

-5.0% 

2.4% 

40 

 *

24 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

96

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles Std. Error

Net

of

Measure

Both

Control

Voucher  Difference  Difference

N

One tester told higher incentives 

0.0% 

5.0% 

-5.0% 

2.4% 

40 

* 

Average incentives 

$0 

$117 

-$117 

$84 

40 

Told security deposit required 

100.0%  0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

40 

Average security deposit for any unit 

$1,942 

$2,071 

-$129 

$114 

40 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

27.5% 

22.5% 

5.0% 

13.7% 

40 

Average yearly net cost 

$23,433  $23,388 

$46 

$76 

40 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

25 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

97

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

98

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark APPENDIX D: Analyses of Differential 

Treatment by Tester Pair Race and 

by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for 

Newark

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

99

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark TABLE D.1  

Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of Differential Treatment: Newark, In-Person White Pairs versus Black Pairs 

White 

Black 

Difference in 

Difference 

Net 

Net 

Black and 

Std. 

Control   Voucher   Difference  Control   Voucher   Difference

White Pairs

Error

N 

Testers able to meet with landlord 

19.9% 

10.2% 

9.7% 

18.6% 

12.2% 

6.4% 

-3.3% 

5.9% 

374 

If testers able to meet with landlord 

Told any units available 

1.  9% 

0.  0% 

1.  9% 

4.  5% 

0.  9% 

3.  6% 

1.  7% 

3.  1% 

217 

One tester told about more units 

20.8% 

5.7% 

15.1% 

23.4% 

6.3% 

17.1% 

2.0% 

6.4% 

217   

Average number of units told about 

1.39 

1.17 

0.22 

1.39 

1.22 

0.17 

-0.05 

0.11 

217   

If available units recommended 

Inspected units 

1.0% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

5.8% 

6.7% 

-1.0% 

-1.9% 

3.3% 

207 

One tester inspected more units 

7.8% 

3.9% 

3.9% 

14.4% 

8.7% 

5.8% 

1.9% 

5.1% 

207   

Average number of units inspected 

1.12 

1.06 

0.06 

0.99 

0.94 

-0.01 

0.07 

207   

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

6.8% 

5.8% 

1.0% 

6.7% 

12.5% 

-5.8% 

-6.7% 

6.0% 

207 

Told a credit check must be completed 

9.7% 

7.8% 

1.9% 

7.7% 

10.6% 

-2.9% 

-4.8% 

5.3% 

207   

Told a cosigner is required 

5.8% 

1.9% 

3.9% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

0.0% 

-3.9% 

3.4% 

207   

Told a background check must be done 

18.4% 

14.6% 

3.9% 

26.9% 

19.2% 

7.7% 

3.8% 

7.9% 

207   

Told an eviction check must be done 

12.6% 

18.4% 

-5.8% 

19.2% 

15.4% 

3.8% 

9.7% 

8.5% 

207   

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

9.7% 

10.7% 

-1.0% 

8.7% 

20.2% 

-11.5% 

-10.6% 

7.0% 

207   

Told to apply online or given website address 

for application 

15.5% 

15.5% 

0.0% 

14.4% 

21.2% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

7.6% 

207   

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

1.0% 

1.9% 

-1.0% 

3.8% 

2.9% 

1.0% 

1.9% 

3.1% 

Landlord requested household size/composition 

13.6% 

21.4% 

-7.8% 

18.3% 

19.2% 

-1.0% 

6.8% 

8.6% 

 207   

Landlord requested income 

11.7% 

9.7% 

1.9% 

15.4% 

8.7% 

6.7% 

4.8% 

5.8% 

207   

Landlord requested source of income 

15.5% 

13.6% 

1.9% 

16.3% 

13.5% 

2.9% 

0.9% 

8.6% 

207   

Landlord requested occupation 

11.7% 

3.9% 

7.8% 

8.7% 

10.6% 

-1.9% 

-9.7% 

4.9% 

207   * 

Landlord requested employer 

12.6% 

6.8% 

5.8% 

17.3% 

10.6% 

6.7% 

0.9% 

6.8% 

207 

Landlord requested length of employment 

3.9% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

5.8% 

0.0% 

5.8% 

5.8% 

3.8% 

207   

Landlord requested credit standing 

15.5% 

12.6% 

2.9% 

17.3% 

12.5% 

4.8% 

1.9% 

8.4% 

207   

Landlord requested rent history, including 

207   

evictions 

5.8% 

9.7% 

-3.9% 

5.8% 

3.8% 

1.9% 

5.8% 

4.4% 

Landlord requested contact information 

15.5% 

19.4% 

-3.9% 

15.4% 

23.1% 

-7.7% 

-3.8% 

7.4% 

207 

Landlord requested other information 

7.8% 

1.0% 

6.8% 

6.7% 

1.0% 

5.8% 

-1.0% 

3.7% 

207 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

8.7% 

4.9% 

3.9% 

11.5% 

5.8% 

5.8% 

1.9% 

4.9% 

207 

27 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

100

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark

White 

Black 

Difference in 

Difference 

Net 

Net 

Black and 

Std. 

Control   Voucher   Difference  Control   Voucher   Difference

White Pairs

Error

N 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

1.0% 

4.9% 

-3.9% 

7.7% 

8.7% 

-1.0% 

2.9% 

5.5% 

207 

Told comment on fair housing 

1.0% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

1.9% 

-1.0% 

-1.0% 

2.2% 

207 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

1.9% 

2.9% 

-1.0% 

0.0% 

1.9% 

-1.9% 

-1.0% 

2.3% 

207 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

1.0% 

3.9% 

-2.9% 

3.8% 

4.8% 

-1.0% 

2.0% 

4.3% 

207 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

1.0% 

1.9% 

-1.0% 

1.0% 

1.9% 

-1.0% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

207 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$1,486 

$1,490 

-$4 

$1,529 

$1,526 

$3 

$8 

$14 

207 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward deposit/rent 

5.8% 

2.9% 

2.9% 

9.6% 

6.7% 

2.9% 

0.0% 

5.1% 

207 

One tester told higher fees toward deposit/rent 

5.8% 

3.9% 

1.9% 

10.6% 

6.7% 

3.8% 

1.9% 

5.2% 

207 

Average fees that would go toward deposit/rent 

$41 

$46 

-$6 

$127 

$93 

$34 

$39 

$78 

207 

Told fees required for any unit 

3.9% 

8.7% 

-4.9% 

5.8% 

6.7% 

-1.0% 

3.9% 

4.0% 

207 

One tester told higher fees 

22.3% 

20.4% 

1.9% 

16.3% 

25.0% 

-8.7% 

-10.6% 

8.6% 

207 

Average fees for any unit 

$500 

$526 

-$26 

$573 

$632 

-$59 

-$33 

$69 

207 

Told about incentives 

2.9% 

2.9% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

3.8% 

-1.0% 

-1.0% 

3.8% 

207 

One tester told higher incentives 

3.9% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

4.8% 

-1.9% 

-1.9% 

4.6% 

207 

Average incentives 

$61 

$75 

-$14 

$47 

$56 

-$9 

$5 

$28 

207 

Told security deposit required 

2.9% 

4.9% 

-1.9% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

2.9% 

2.9% 

207 

Average security deposit for any unit 

$2,061 

$2,066 

-$5 

$2,178 

$2,223 

-$45 

-$36 

$51 

198 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

36.9% 

32.0% 

4.9% 

23.1% 

34.6% 

-11.5% 

-16.4% 

11.8% 

207 

Average yearly net cost 

$20,227 

$20,360 

-$134 

$20,996 

$21,085 

-$89 

$44 

$230 

207 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

101

28 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D IS C R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H ER  H O L D ER S  

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark TABLE D.2  

Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of Differential Treatment: Newark, In-Person Low- versus High-Poverty Census Tracts 

Low Poverty 

High Poverty 

Difference in 

Difference Low-   

Net 

Net 

and High-Poverty 

Std. 

Control   Voucher   Difference  Control   Voucher   Difference

Pairs

Error

N 

Testers able to meet with landlord 

24.0% 

3.1% 

20.8% 

17.5% 

12.5% 

5.0% 

-15.8% 

10.3% 

176 

If testers able to meet with landlord 

Told any units available 

3.  4% 

0.  0% 

3.  4% 

0.  0% 

0.  0% 

0.  0% 

-3.  4% 

3.  3% 

 101   

One tester told about more units 

16.9% 

3.4% 

13.6% 

38.1% 

2.4% 

35.7% 

22.2% 

9.4% 

101   ** 

Average number of units told about 

1.19 

1.08 

0.10 

1.74 

1.19 

0.55 

0.45 

0.16 

101  *** 

If available units recommended 

Inspected units 

3.5% 

3.5% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

4.8% 

-2.4% 

-2.4% 

4.8% 

99 

One tester inspected more units 

7.0% 

5.3% 

1.8% 

19.0% 

7.1% 

11.9% 

10.2% 

8.2% 

99 

Average number of units inspected 

1.00 

1.02 

-0.02 

1.21 

1.00 

0.21 

0.23 

0.16 

99 

Requirements 

Told an application must be completed 

8.8% 

12.3% 

-3.5% 

11.9% 

9.5% 

2.4% 

5.9% 

9.6% 

99 

Told a credit check must be completed 

7.0% 

7.0% 

0.0% 

16.7% 

7.1% 

9.5% 

9.5% 

8.7% 

99 

Told a cosigner is required 

1.8% 

0.0% 

1.8% 

4.8% 

2.4% 

2.4% 

0.6% 

4.4% 

99 

Told a background check must be done 

21.1% 

12.3% 

8.8% 

19.0% 

21.4% 

-2.4% 

-11.2% 

10.8% 

99 

Told an eviction check must be done 

19.3% 

17.5% 

1.8% 

16.7% 

16.7% 

0.0% 

-1.8% 

11.6% 

99 

Offered a copy of application by landlord 

8.8% 

19.3% 

-10.5% 

7.1% 

9.5% 

-2.4% 

8.1% 

9.2% 

99 

Told to apply online or given website address for 

application 

15.8% 

14.0% 

1.8% 

11.9% 

23.8% 

-11.9% 

-13.7% 

11.8% 

99 

Qualifications 

Landlord requested marital status 

0.0% 

3.5% 

-3.5% 

2.4% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

5.9% 

3.5% 

99 

* 

Landlord requested household size/composition 

8.8% 

15.8% 

-7.0% 

21.4% 

28.6% 

-7.1% 

-0.1% 

8.0% 

99 

Landlord requested income 

3.5% 

12.3% 

-8.8% 

16.7% 

9.5% 

7.1% 

15.9% 

10.8% 

99 

Landlord requested source of income 

7.0% 

19.3% 

-12.3% 

14.3% 

9.5% 

4.8% 

17.0% 

9.0% 

99 

 * 

Landlord requested occupation 

3.5% 

10.5% 

-7.0% 

9.5% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

11.8% 

8.9% 

99 

Landlord requested employer 

5.3% 

8.8% 

-3.5% 

14.3% 

9.5% 

4.8% 

8.3% 

9.4% 

99 

Landlord requested length of employment 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

9.5% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

5.9% 

99 

Landlord requested credit standing 

12.3% 

17.5% 

-5.3% 

16.7% 

16.7% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

11.4% 

99 

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 

1.8% 

1.8% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

7.1% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

7.3% 

99 

Landlord requested contact information 

14.0% 

24.6% 

-10.5% 

14.3% 

11.9% 

2.4% 

12.9% 

10.8% 

99 

Landlord requested other information 

5.3% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

11.9% 

2.4% 

9.5% 

4.3% 

6.0% 

99 

Comments 

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 

7.0% 

5.3% 

1.8% 

14.3% 

4.8% 

9.5% 

7.8% 

7.8% 

99 

29 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

102

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark

Low Poverty 

High Poverty 

Difference in 

Difference Low-   

Net 

Net 

and High-Poverty 

Std. 

Control   Voucher   Difference  Control   Voucher   Difference

Pairs

Error

N 

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 

3.5% 

7.0% 

-3.5% 

7.1% 

9.5% 

-2.4% 

1.1% 

8.4% 

99 

Told comment on fair housing 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

4.8% 

2.4% 

2.4% 

2.4% 

4.1% 

99 

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 

0.0% 

1.8% 

-1.8% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

-7.1% 

-5.4% 

4.5% 

99 

Asked how security deposit wil  be paid 

1.8% 

1.8% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

11.9% 

-9.5% 

-9.5% 

7.5% 

99 

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 

0.0% 

3.5% 

-3.5% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

-2.4% 

1.1% 

3.5% 

99 

Rent and lease 

Average rent for any unit 

$1,680 

$1,680 

$1 

$1,350 

$1,363 

-$14 

-$14 

$23 

99 

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs 

Told fees that would go toward deposit/rent 

10.5% 

8.8% 

1.8% 

7.1% 

2.4% 

4.8% 

3.0% 

7.5% 

99 

One tester told higher fees toward deposit/rent 

12.3% 

8.8% 

3.5% 

7.1% 

2.4% 

4.8% 

1.3% 

6.8% 

99 

Average fees that would go toward deposit/rent 

$171 

$133 

$37 

$7 

$32 

-$25 

-$62 

$107 

99 

Told fees required for any unit 

5.3% 

7.0% 

-1.8% 

9.5% 

14.3% 

-4.8% 

-3.0% 

10.2% 

99 

One tester told higher fees 

21.1% 

22.8% 

-1.8% 

16.7% 

19.0% 

-2.4% 

-0.6% 

11.9% 

99 

Average fees for any unit 

$748 

$850 

-$102 

$205 

$166 

$39 

$142 

$115 

99 

Told about incentives 

0.0% 

3.5% 

-3.5% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

-2.4% 

1.1% 

3.5% 

92 

One tester told higher incentives 

1.8% 

3.5% 

-1.8% 

0.0% 

2.4% 

-2.4% 

-0.6% 

4.0% 

99 

Average incentives 

$35 

$43 

-$9 

$40 

$53 

-$13 

-$4 

$15 

99 

Told security deposit required 

0.0% 

8.8% 

-8.8% 

4.8% 

0.0% 

4.8% 

13.5% 

7.2% 

99 

*  

Average security deposit for any unit 

$2,310 

$2,397 

-$87 

$1,887 

$1,903 

-$16 

$71 

$86 

99 

One tester told higher yearly net cost 

22.8% 

36.8% 

-14.0% 

33.3% 

31.0% 

2.4% 

16.4% 

19.2% 

99 

Average yearly net cost 

$22,958 

$23,379 

-$421 

$18,240 

$18,285 

-$46 

$376 

$383 

99 

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

103

30 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N  A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H ER  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

104

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

APPENDIX E: Identifiability Analysis

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis 

To assess tester racial and ethnic identifiability, which we defined as the likelihood that a landlord would accurately perceive a tester’s race or ethnicity to be the same as their assigned race or ethnicity for 

paired testing, we used the method developed for a housing discrimination study in 2012, which we have 

also used on subsequent studies.  

First, local testing organizations recorded testers reading a short prepared script and, for testers 

conducting in-person testing, took photographs. Test coordinators sent the audio recordings, 

photographs, and names of all participating testers to the study team. This approach captured the 

information available to landlords to identify testers’ race or ethnicity during telephone and in-person interactions. 

Study team members who did not know the testers then assessed racial and ethnicity identifiability by 

completing one of two questionnaires. For the first questionnaire, they read the names of testers who 

conducted remote tests, listened to each tester’s audio recording (that is, the information available to an agent over the telephone), and recorded what they perceived the tester’s race or ethnicity to be. For the second questionnaire, the reviewers viewed photographs and names and listened to audio recordings of 

testers who conducted in-person tests (that is, the information available to an agent during an in-person meeting). Three independent coders assessed each tester’s name, voice, and photo. We used these data 

to determine whether results varied when we excluded tests with testers whose race or ethnicity was not 

readily identifiable. Table E.1 shows the results of the identifiability analysis. More than 97 percent of all photographed testers and 78 percent of all voice-recorded testers were perceived as their assigned race 

or ethnicity by at least two of three reviewers.  

For the voucher discrimination study, as in other housing discrimination studies, the study team 

conducted the identifiability analyses for paired telephone and in-person testers after data collection was concluded. However, for prospective voucher acceptance testers, the racial or ethnic identifiability 

analysis was completed at the outset to confirm they would be perceived as non-Hispanic White females. 

Testing organizations should consider the extent to which testers who are racially or ethnically identifiable over the telephone or in person may be important for a particular testing project. Depending on the type of testing to be conducted, fair housing practitioners could determine whether to conduct identifiability 

analyses at the outset of a project and use the findings to decide which testers to hire. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

31 

105

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

TABLE E.1  

Number of Respondents Who Accurately Identified Testers’ Race/Ethnicity 

Photo 

Voice 

R

espondents 

n 

% 

n 

% 

One 

2 

2.0 

14 

13.9 

Two or more 

98 

97.0 

79 

78.2 

Zero 

1 

1.0 

8 

7.9 

Note:  N = 101 testers. 

32 

A   P ILO T   S T U D Y   O F D ISC R IM IN A T IO N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E   V OU C H E R  H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

106

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

APPENDIX F: Qualitative Codebook

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook 

TABLE F.1 

Codebook for Qualitative Analysis  

Theme 

Subtheme 

Stigma attached to 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern with number of people in the home 

voucher holders 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern with who would be staying in the home 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about voucher holders 

Landlord assumes voucher holder does not have a job 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about receiving payment (rent or fees) 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about property damage 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about Section 8 in general 

PHA management 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about the PHA 

or program 

Landlord says wil  accept vouchers from specific PHAs/asks which PHA voucher is from 

requirements 

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about requirements of the program (e.g., 

inspections, approval process, waiting times) 

Landlord sets screening requirements 

Landlord sets timing requirements around move-in approval process 

requirements/inspection requirements 

Landlord sets occupancy requirements 

Landlord asks about number of people/who would be moving in 

Voucher holder must apply/register before viewing the unit 

Voucher holder cannot meet with a person 

Landlord sets 

Landlord sets work/income/job requirements (including paystub requests) 

income 

Landlord asks about voucher holder’s job 

requirements 

Landlord sets credit score/application requirements/fee 

Landlord sets deposit requirements (includes asks if you could pay) 

Landlord references vouchers as a part of income/verifiable income 

Landlord sets rent 

Landlord says rent depends on voucher amount 

requirements  

Landlord says rent is above voucher amount (includes landlord not taking voucher for 

certain size because of the payment standard for that size, incorrectly assuming rent is 

above voucher amount) 

Landlords asks for additional payment 

Landlords asks how much the voucher covers/sets requirements about coverage 

Landlords asks how many bedrooms the voucher is for 

Landlord sets bedroom requirement 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

33 

107

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

Theme 

Subtheme 

Landlord 

Landlord acknowledges that he/she is required to take vouchers 

acceptance/denial 

Landlord excited about vouchers/interested in voucher holders 

details 

Landlord does not know if they accept and/or are uninformed about the voucher program 

Landlord specifically references Section 8/Section 8 needs to be referenced 

Landlord says that they do not have the certifications 

Landlord says that they have hit their threshold on vouchers and are no longer accepting 

them 

Landlord used to accept vouchers and no longer does 

Landlord sets general desirability of applicant/application approval/must be like other 

applicants 

Landlord says property accepts vouchers but management/agent doesn’t work with 

vouchers 

Voucher holder must meet with agent/apply before being told about voucher policy 

Landlord checking what he/she is legally obligated to do/not unless legally obligated 

Landlord behavior 

Landlord stated that they would call back and didn’t 

patterns 

Landlord hung up/abruptly ended the call 

Landlord expressed regret over voucher policy/lack of housing 

Landlord suggests alternative housing (or search method) that would accept vouchers 

Landlord comments on neighborhood/told to drive by house 

Landlord addresses the voucher before the tester directly asks about voucher 

Asks to talk to caseworker/tells voucher holder to talk to caseworker 

Asks about evictions/felonies 

Asks how long the voucher holder has had her voucher 

Physical condition 

of housing 

No subthemes 

No themes present, 

no additional 

No subthemes 

comments 

Landlord mentions 

tight housing 

There is a waitlist for all units 

market 

34 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

108

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

APPENDIX G: Testing Protocols

Appendix G: Testing Protocols 

TABLE G.1 

Testing Protocols 

Issue 

Testing protocol 

Types of paired test teams 

All paired test teams wil  consist of two individuals (one tester with a voucher and one 

control tester without a voucher) who are paired on personal, financial, and household 

characteristics so that the primary difference between their households is their sources 

of income. Testers within pairs wil  be the same race/ethnicity, sex, and relative age. 

Tests wil  be distributed among Black, White, and Hispanic test teams. Al  test teams 

will be female-headed single-parent families. 

Sampling of rental 

The Urban Institute (Urban) wil  employ an advertisement sampling team to identify 

advertisements 

eligible two- and three-bedroom units by using housing search websites (e.g., 

craigslist.org, rent.com, apartments.com). The sampling team wil  use screening criteria 

specified by local public housing authority (PHA) guidelines to focus their search and 

determine advertisement eligibility. Details from eligible advertisements wil  be used to 

create a test authorization form (TAF), which includes details about the landlord to be 

contacted.  

Voucher acceptance tests 

Urban testers perceived as being non-Hispanic White (in name and voice) wil  contact 

landlords to verify the availability and eligibility of sampled rental housing. The testers 

wil  portray a single female voucher holder with children, the number of which wil  

depend on the housing’s number of bedrooms. Testers will ask the landlords if they 

accept vouchers after verifying unit availability and eligibility. 

Contact will ALWAYS be made in response to advertisements via telephone if possible, 

by e-mail (if no telephone number is listed), or by electronic contact form (if no 

telephone number or e-mail address is listed). 

The tester will confirm 

n 

the exact date that the advertised housing is available (and, if the advertised housing is no

longer available, what housing is available and when);

n 

the price of the available rental housing;

n 

the size (number of bedrooms) of each available rental unit, focusing exclusively on two-

and three-bedroom units (if none are available, the ad is ineligible);

n 

the exact address of each available rental unit;

n 

office hours (or, if there are no office hours, whether an appointment is required); and

n 

housing provider comments about the PHA/voucher program/voucher holders.

The testers can make up to three telephone calls (without leaving a message) or send 

one e-mail or submit one electronic contact form if the ad does not include a telephone 

number. If the landlord cannot be reached within 24 hours of the first attempted e-mail 

or e-contact, the ad wil  be dropped. If the advertisement remains eligible, the sampled 

advertisement wil  be assigned to a paired test.  

The information obtained from the voucher acceptance test and recorded on the 

advance contact form wil  be used by local test coordinators to make credible paired-

test assignments. 

Authorization to test  

Local test coordinators wil  receive TAFs and advance contact forms for each test. The 

TAF specifies the order in which each tester wil  contact a landlord, and the advance 

contact form provides information on the available housing. The local test coordinator 

will create tester profiles and test assignments based on the information in the TAF and 

advance contact form. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

109

35 

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Issue 

Testing protocol 

Qualifications of testers 

Testers designated as voucher holders wil  be assigned household incomes based on 

the Housing Choice Voucher–eligible income (30 to 40 percent of area median income) 

for each site. Control testers’ household incomes wil  be based on the same 

percentage of area median income assigned to the tester designated as a voucher 

holder plus the estimated value of the voucher income. On other characteristics, 

voucher holders wil  be assigned the same or slightly better qualifications than the 

control testers (e.g., longer time at current residence, longer time on the job).  

Assignment of tester 

Although some paired-tester characteristics wil  be their own, such as their 

characteristics—general 

race/ethnicity, their age, and in most cases, their name and home address, many tester 

characteristics wil  be assigned by the local test coordinator. To the extent possible, 

Black and Hispanic testers wil  be assigned profiles that make them as 

racially/ethnically identifiable as possible during telephone contact. For example, if a 

Hispanic tester has a surname that might be perceived as being White, she wil  be 

assigned a last name that would be perceived as Hispanic. A tester wil  complete one 

test assignment before receiving the next assignment. 

Testers wil  also be assigned characteristics about their child’s or children’s age and 

sex. Testers wil  be assigned between one and four children, depending on the local 

PHA occupancy guidelines. Al  children wil  be between the ages of 7 and 12. 

Assignment of tester 

Tester income wil  be automatically generated by the Central Online Data Entry 

characteristics—income and  (CODE) system based on financial inputs developed during the project’s design phase. 

credit 

Testers wil  be equipped to provide their annual and monthly gross income amounts. 

Testers posing as voucher holders wil  also be provided with the amount of their 

voucher, including their current total tenant payment and housing assistance payment. 

Al  testers wil  decline to authorize any type of credit check, but they wil  be able to 

respond to inquiries about their credit standing. Al  testers wil  say that their credit is 

good and that there are no problems with their rental history. 

Assignment of tester 

Local test coordinators wil  assign testers credible occupations based on the income 

characteristics—

assigned by the CODE system. Local test coordinators wil  assign testers within a pair 

employment and occupation  comparable but not identical occupations (in terms of both education and field of endeavor). 

Local test coordinators also wil  assign testers current length of employment: no tester 

wil  be employed for fewer than two years on her current job.  

The length of current employment assigned to testers with vouchers wil  always be the 

same or slightly longer than the length of current employment assigned to testers who 

do not have a voucher. 

Assignment of tester 

Testers wil  be assigned to indicate that they have lived at their current residence for no 

characteristics—current 

fewer than two years. Testers designated as voucher holders wil  always be assigned 

housing 

the same or slightly longer current residency than the control testers with whom they 

are matched.  

Assignment of tester 

Testers wil  be assigned a move-in date by which they need to find rental housing. 

characteristics—when 

They wil  be instructed to consider housing available up to 21 days after their assigned 

housing is needed 

move-in date so that they can appear flexible should a landlord mention additional units 

available within this time frame. Local test coordinators wil  direct testers to request 

housing based on information in the selected advertisement and on information 

obtained from the voucher acceptance test.  

Assignment of tester 

Local test coordinators and testers wil  receive considerable guidance in training 

characteristics—reason for 

sessions on how to respond appropriately to questions regarding the reason for 

moving 

moving. For example, looking for a larger unit and going through foreclosure are NOT 

appropriate responses. “Having recently relocated to the area” wil  also be excluded 

among others as an allowable response. These exclusions reflect our understanding of 

likely limitations facing voucher moves for families fitting our tester profile, and that 

landlords familiar with the voucher program may recognize.  

36 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

110

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Issue 

Testing protocol 

Assignment of tester 

Testers wil  be assigned both a Google Voice telephone number and a Gmail e-mail 

characteristics—home 

address. Testers wil  record personalized greetings on their voicemail telephone 

telephone numbers and e-

numbers. Voicemail and e-mail accounts wil  be systematically checked for messages 

mail addresses 

at least once every three to four days after a test has taken place. This process wil  

ensure that all follow-up contact from housing providers is documented systematically. 

Assignment of tester 

Testers wil  never volunteer any area or neighborhood preferences. If pressed by a 

characteristics—area or 

landlord to state whether a tester prefers any area, a tester wil  be able to identify a 

neighborhood preferences 

broad geographic area (either by name or by street boundaries). The broad geographic 

area wil  always include the area in which the advertised housing is located. Testers 

wil  always be open to considering other areas as well. Regional coordinators wil  work 

with local test coordinators before the assignment of practice tests to develop the broad 

geographic area definitions within each metropolitan statistical area.  

Assignment of tester 

The housing to be requested by testers wil  be based on the selected advertisement 

characteristics—size and 

and the actual availability of housing as determined by the voucher acceptance test. 

type of housing to be 

Testers wil  initially inquire about and request an appointment to view the advertised 

requested 

housing according to the number of bedrooms being sought. Testers wil  also inquire 

about other housing that is 

n 

adequate for the tester’s household in terms of size (number of bedrooms),

n 

within the tester’s maximum rent, and

n 

available for the time that the tester needs housing.

Assignment of tester 

Based on the price, location, and proximity to public transportation of the advertised 

characteristics—whether 

housing, test coordinators must determine whether potential renters would be likely to 

tester owns car 

own a car. Test coordinators wil  ensure that car ownership, or lack thereof, is 

consistent across the tester pair. 

Tester instructions 

Local test coordinators wil  provide every tester with a detailed set of instructions that 

accompany each rental assignment form. These instructions wil  remind testers of the 

testing protocols they must fol ow.  

Communication between 

Local test coordinators wil  coordinate the times and dates that testers make telephone 

testers  

calls and site visits to ensure that tests are conducted in accordance with the 

prescribed order and spacing requirements for such calls and visits. Testers wil  not be 

told when their tester matches have cal ed or visited a particular test site.  

Testers may discuss their testing experiences with the local test coordinator. However, 

testers are to maintain absolute confidentiality and not discuss their testing experiences 

with anyone else, including other testers.  

Testing approach: 

Al  test assignments wil  require a tester to make an appointment before making a site 

appointment contact or 

visit. During the telephone contact, the tester wil  also obtain information about 

telephone inquiry about 

available housing. A tester wil  be assigned to contact the landlord by telephone unless 

available housing followed 

the advertisement only provides an e-mail address or an electronic contact form. 

by in-person site visit 

Order of spacing of contacts  The order in which contact with the housing provider is made will be assigned at for appointments 

random and conveyed to the local test coordinator on the TAF. 

The spacing of telephone, e-mail, or e-contacts for appointments by members of the 

test team should be between 1 and 6 hours apart and never more than 24 hours apart. 

Following every attempt to schedule an appointment and obtain information about 

available housing, a tester wil  complete an appointment contact form. If testers obtain 

information about available housing, they wil  also complete a telephone report form 

and available rental unit form—telephone.  

Initial contacts: appointment 

Testers contacting the landlord by telephone wil  make two attempts to reach the 

contacts 

housing provider before leaving a message on the third attempt. Al  testers wil  leave 

their assigned Google Voice telephone number on their message, and testers 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

37 

111

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Issue 

Testing protocol 

designated as voucher holders must disclose this during their message. If, after 24 

hours, testers have not received a response to their message, they will call a fourth and 

final time. If, on the fourth attempt, they are stil  unable to reach the housing provider, 

they wil  not leave a message. Testers contacting the landlord by e-mail or electronic 

contact form wil  send only one e-mail inquiry or submit only one electronic contact 

form. Testers must alert the local test coordinator immediately after leaving a telephone 

message, sending an e-mail, or submitting an electronic contact form so that voicemail 

and e-mail accounts can be closely monitored. 

Upon contacting a landlord, testers wil  conduct a telephone test and then request an 

appointment to view the advertised housing. During this contact, testers designated as 

voucher holders must say so to the landlord at the outset of the conversation. 

If both testers in the pair can obtain an appointment to view housing, both testers wil  

proceed to the site visit stage. Both testers wil  always attempt to contact the landlord, 

but if only one tester can make an appointment at the telephone stage, neither tester 

wil  proceed to the site visit stage. 

Before conducting the in-person site visit, testers wil  complete the telephone report 

forms to document information obtained during the initial telephone inquiry. 

Order of spacing of site 

Local test coordinators will be responsible for ensuring that testers initiate contact with 

visits 

the housing provider in the order specified on the TAF. Members of a test team should 

space visits between 1 and 24 hours, but no more than 48 hours, apart. 

Site visit no-show 

Testers wil  visit a rental housing site to inquire about the advertised unit and other 

available housing that meets their needs and to view such housing. If the landlord has 

not arrived by the time of the appointment, testers wil  be instructed to wait 15 minutes 

for him/her to arrive. If the housing provider has not shown up after 15 minutes, testers 

wil  attempt to contact the landlord to confirm whether he/she wil  keep the scheduled 

appointment. If the tester can contact the housing provider and is told she cannot be 

shown units until a later time or that the landlord wil  not keep the appointment, she will 

be instructed to thank the landlord and leave the test site without scheduling a 

subsequent appointment. The canceled/deferred appointment is captured as a test 

outcome. 

If the tester is unable to reach the landlord to confirm the appointment, the tester wil  

wait an additional 45 minutes (for a total of 60 minutes) before leaving the test site. The 

site visit no-show is captured as a test outcome. 

Site visits 

During the site visit, testers designated as voucher holders must say so to the landlord 

at the outset of the visit, regardless of whether they spoke with the same agent during 

their appointment contact. 

If testers are able to meet with a landlord during a site visit, tests should be completed 

in a single visit. No appointments should be made for a second visit. If a tester is ever 

told that no rental housing is available in response to her request, the tester wil  always 

inquire about when the agent expects to have an available unit. 

After each site visit, testers must complete a site visit report form and other appropriate 

forms. Testers should begin fil ing out forms within an hour following the completion of 

each site visit. 

Note-taking by testers 

Note-taking by al  testers is  required. Testers wil  only note information that an ordinary 

homeseeker would typically record. Local test coordinators wil  equip testers with 

notepads of different shapes, sizes, and colors. Notes taken by testers wil  be turned in 

to the local test coordinator, identified by test ID number, and retained until sent to 

Urban. 

Documenting site visits 

Testers wil  begin the appropriate test forms within one hour of completing site visits. 

made by testers 

Testers must submit all test reports to the local test coordinator via CODE before 

receiving the next test assignment. Testers may use a personal computer or approved 

38 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

112

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Issue 

Testing protocol 

electronic device to complete test forms. 

Test narratives wil  be required on all telephone tests and 20 percent of site visit tests 

and wil  be randomly assigned. 

Timing of debriefings 

Local test coordinators wil  debrief testers within 24 hours after each test assignment is 

completed, regardless of whether the test includes a site visit, and before providing the 

tester with the next test assignment. The local test coordinator wil  review al  the test 

materials from that tester and check to make sure that all appropriate forms have been 

fil ed out completely and accurately. Once the local test coordinator is confident a tester 

has mastered the testing and reporting requirements, subsequent debriefings may take 

place via telephone.  

Follow-up contact 

If a tester receives fol ow-up contact of any kind from a landlord within 14 days of the 

site visit, the tester wil  document the follow-up contact by completing a follow-up 

contact form using the CODE system and notify the local test coordinator immediately. 

If a tester receives fol ow-up contact of any kind from a housing provider more than 14 

days after the site visit, the tester should notify the local test coordinator immediately. 

Local test coordinators wil  retrieve all follow-up messages left for testers on their 

assigned voicemail telephone numbers or e-mail accounts. Coordinators wil  document 

the fol ow-up and, if necessary, instruct testers to indicate that they are no longer 

interested. 

Submission of test report 

Local test coordinators wil  review test report forms for completeness and accuracy 

forms 

before submitting them electronically to Urban. Local test coordinators wil  complete a 

final assessment form for each test indicating whether the test was completed and if 

not, the reason. The regional coordinator wil  complete the form after reviewing the test 

file, indicating whether the test has passed quality review. If a test does not pass 

quality review, the regional coordinator wil  detail the reason.  

Analysis of test results 

Local test coordinators will not be expected to complete any comparative analysis of 

tester experiences. Test data analysis wil  be completed by the analysis team at Urban.  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

39 

113

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

114

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A

AP ppendi

PENDI x

X  H

 H: : T

 T est

est  C

 C oor

oordi di

n nat

atoror

 R  esources

Resources 

 TESTER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND EVALUATION FORM 

 Tester name: ______________________________________ 

 Things to mention over the telephone when scheduling interview 

•  Estimated interview time: 30-45 minutes 

•  Interview location, with specific address 

•  Your contact information 

•  Ask if tester has a valid driver’s license and access to a vehicle 

 For in-person interview: 

 Welcome & Introductions 

•  Introduce yourself and initiate a discussion of applicant’s résumé and experience 

•  Let the applicant know that you are recruiting for participants in a “research study” (do 

not offer any project specifics at this point) 

Affiliation with the Housing Industry 

•  Applicant or immediate family member cannot work in housing industry 

Screening question: Are you or any of your immediate family members affiliated with the 

housing industry (real estate agent, property manager, mortgage lender, homeowner’s 

insurance broker, title company employee, architect, developer, etc.)? 

 Confidentiality 

•  If applicant has passed initial screening, have applicant sign Tester Consent and Limited 

Waiver Agreement 

•  Make sure applicant understands the importance of keeping project information 

confidential, even if applicant does not decide to participate as a tester 

Introduce Project 

•  Introduce HDS-SOI in brief (research study, paired testing, importance of objectivity) 

•  Testing is like “acting” or role-playing, and testers are given personal, household and 

financial characteristics that do not necessarily match their own 

•  Explain that the project deals with measuring discrimination against Housing Choice 

Voucher holders in the rental housing market. Testers should be comfortable with the 

overall objective of this study. 

Screening questions: 

•   Do you have any reservations about your ability to be convincing as a tester, or are you 

reluctant to provide fabricated information to a housing provider in a test situation? 

•   Do you or does anyone you know participate in the HCV / Section 8 program? 

•   What is your overall comfort level discussing the HCV / Section 8 program? 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

40 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

115

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

•   Do you have any knowledge about issues that affect HCV / Section 8 participants? 

 Tester Training Session, Project Timeline, Time Commitment and Location Details 

•  Provide Tester Training date, time and location. Stress that attendance is mandatory. 

•  Provide details about project timeline, and potential testing locations. 

Question: What is your general availability to test (available days, nights, weekdays, weekends, 

etc.)? 

 Tester Compensation 

•  Explain the stipend/pay rate for attending Tester Training and conducting practice test. 

•  Explain the stipend/pay rate for each attempted test (appointment contact) and 

completed test (site visit), and discuss mileage rate if applicable. 

Evaluation/Tester Application: 

 Note: if tester has answered the initial questions above to your satisfaction, please have them 

complete a Tester Application on CODE, and review the following pieces of information: 

•  Applicant’s race/ethnicity and age 

•  Applicant’s current employment and employment history 

•  Applicant’s weekly availability 

•  Applicant’s access to transportation for conducting tests 

 Does the applicant work or have immediate family members that work in the housing industry? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

  Does the applicant have a high profile in the community or a prominent online presence that 

could cause a detection risk?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

  Wil the applicant be able to attend the Tester Training Program and be available on a regular 

basis to conduct tests?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

  Does the applicant seem comfortable with the objectives of the study, and with the HCV / 

Section 8 program overall?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Is there any reason to believe that the applicant might be less than reliable and cooperative, or 

wil  have difficulty following instructions? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Is there any reason to believe that the applicant might have trouble reporting their test 

experiences in an accurate, complete and objective manner?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Is the applicant reasonably personable, well-groomed and articulate? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Does the applicant possess adequate writing skils? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Wil the applicant be able to use CODE to enter test forms? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

41 

116

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

Were you able to note whether the applicant had a more outgoing or reserved personality? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

 Please explain: 

___________________________________ 

  Is the applicant a good match for any other applicants you’ve previously interviewed? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 Please explain: 

___________________________________ 

 Evaluation of Appearance 

 Tester’s perceived race: 

___________________________________ 

Tester’s perceived age or age range: 

___________________________________ 

Applicant has an accent of any sort (if yes, explain)? 

______________________________________ 

  Did the applicant demonstrate any characteristics that may cause them to be an unsuitable 

match?  

 Please explain: 

___________________________________ 

  Did applicant have any of the following? 

•  Neglect of personal hygiene 

•  Excessive tattoos or piercings? 

•  Excessive facial hair, unkempt hair, or flashy hairstyle/hair color? 

•  A style of dress that cannot be classified as “clean and casual”? 

 Applicant Selected? 

[ ] Yes [ ] No 

 Date: 

___________________________________ 

42 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

117

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

TESTER BRIEFING CHECKLIST: HDS-SOI 

(For use by test coordinator; one briefing checklist must be placed in each test file) 

 Control #___________________________________ 

Tester 1 Name:________________________________________________________ Tester 1 

ID#:___________________  

Tester 2 Name:________________________________________________________Tester 2 

ID#:___________________  

Tester 1 Appointment Contact to be made on (date)_______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________ 

Tester 2 Appointment Contact to be made on (date)_______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________ 

Tester 1 Site Visit to be made on (date)____________ _____________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________ 

Tester 2 Site Visit to be made on (date)__________ _______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________ 

Note: T1 and T2 must initiate contact in the order specified.  If the order or spacing is incorrect, the test will 

be disqualified.  The appointment contact calls/e-mails/electronic contact must be spaced 1 to 6 hours apart, but no more than 24 hours apart. If the tester does not get an answer, they wil  leave a message on the first call. If, after 24 

hours, they have not received a call back, they wil  call a second time. If they stil  do not get an answer, they wil  NOT 

leave a message. Testers contacting the housing provider by e-mail/electronic contact wil  send only one initial inquiry.  

 Please complete the following tasks during the briefing. Never brief testers at the same time. 

1.  Provide the Tester with the following items: 

T1 

 T2 

□  completed Rental Assignment Form  

___  

___ 

□  tester instructions 

___ 

___ 

□  a copy of  Important Reminders for HDS Testers 

___ 

___ 

□  a notepad or notebook 

___ 

___ 

□  a ballpoint pen   

___ 

___ 

□  telephone number for TC (so they can reach you in an emergency or after hours) ___ 

___ 

2.  Review the Rental Assignment Form with the tester to make sure the tester is comfortable 

portraying the characteristics that have been assigned to them. 

  ___ 

___ 

3.  Review the test instructions with the tester, including when the tester is expected to make the 

appointment contact and the date and time when they should try to schedule the appointment  ___ 

___ 

4.  Review the  Important Reminders for HDS Testers. 

___ 

___ 

5.  Reinforce protocols and make certain the tester understands all of them completely   

___ 

___ 

6.  Remind the tester to call/text you when they have completed the appointment contact/site 

visit. 

  ___ 

___ 

7.  Remind the tester you wil  be available to discuss any insensitive, inappropriate, or 

discriminatory treatment after the test at the debriefing. 

  ___ 

___ 

8.  Remind the tester note taking is mandatory on the appointment contact and the site visit. 

Once the test is completed, the tester must turn the notes in along with their Rental 

Assignment Form and anything given to them by the housing provider. 

  ___ 

___ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

43 

118

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

9.  Remind the tester that the forms must be started on CODE within an hour of completing the 

test. If the tester cannot comply with this requirement, make certain you provide the tester 

with paper forms to fil  out. Remind the tester that they wil  have 24 hours to enter the data 

from the paper forms into CODE. 

  ___ 

___ 

10.

10.  Ask the tester if they have any questions or concerns and address them thoroughly.   

___ 

___ 

44 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

119

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

TESTER DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST: HDS-SOI 

(For use by test coordinator; one debriefing checklist must be placed in each test file) 

 Control #______________ 

Tester 1 Name:______________________________________  Tester ID#: 

________________________ 

Tester 2 Name:______________________________________  Tester ID#: 

________________________ 

Tester 1 Appointment Contact Date: _____________________  Time: ______________________ 

Tester 2 Appointment Contact Date: _____________________  Time: ______________________ 

Tester 1 Site Visit Date: _______________________________  Time: ______________________ 

Tester 2 Site Visit Date: _______________________________  Time: ______________________ 

REMINDER: DO NOT DEBRIEF TESTERS AT THE SAME TIME 

Before the testers arrive: 

 T1 

 T2 

1. 

Review CODE to make sure all forms were completed correctly and corroborate 

each other. 

□  Appointment Contact Form (for each attempt) 

____ 

_____ 

□  Telephone Test Report Form 

_____  _____ 

□  Available Rental Unit Form – Telephone  (for each unit they were told about) 

_____  _____ 

□  Site Visit Test Report Form 

_____  _____ 

□  Available Rental Unit Form – In-Person (for each unit they were told about) 

_____  _____ 

□  Site Visit Test Narrative (if required to complete one)    

_____  _____ 

2. 

If assigned, make sure the narrative provides a detailed, chronological account 

of the tester’s experience.   

_____  _____ 

3. 

Make notes of any corrections that need to be made.   

_____  _____ 

4. 

Compare tester 1 information to tester 2 information to determine if spacing of tests 

is correct. 

_____  _____ 

While testers are in your office:   

 T1 

 T2 

1. 

Collect all of the test materials from the tester, including: 

□  the original Rental Assignment Form including instructions 

_____  _____ 

□  any paper test forms in the event the tester could not access the 

CODE system within one hour following a site visit 

_____  _____ 

□  tester notes: confirm they are initialed and dated. Be sure to add the 

tester’s ID number and test control number; confirm al  pertinent 

information is documented (e.g., rent, number of units, application 

and move-in fees, etc.) 

_____  _____ 

□  any materials received from the housing provider during the site visit 

_____  _____ 

2. 

Ask the testers if they have any comments, questions, or concerns about the test. 

_____  _____ 

3. 

Ask the tester to summarize the test. By having the tester recount the full exchange 

with the housing provider, including what questions were asked and what responses 

were given, you can usually discern if the tester made any protocol mistakes and if 

the tester completed the forms correctly. 

_____  _____ 

4. 

Based on your quality review of the tester’s CODE forms/notes, do you have  

questions about any of the answers provided? If so, talk to the tester about  

them and identify which answers are incomplete or require corrections. Once the 

corrections are made, double check that the forms are complete and accurate.   

_____  _____ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

45 

120

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

5. 

Review all the forms: 

 T1 

 T2 

□  Appointment Contact Form(s) – Are all contact attempts documented?   

_____  _____ 

□  Telephone Test Report Form 

o  Are all questions answered / none left blank? 

_____  _____ 

o  If the voucher tester was told vouchers are not accepted, did the 

tester provide a detailed account of this conversation? 

_____  _____ 

□  Available Rental Unit Form(s) - Telephone 

o  Does each unit meet their needs (i.e., date needed, max rent, size)? 

_____  _____ 

o  Do they have a form for each unit they were told about that met their 

needs?   

_____  _____ 

o  Costs and Incentives – are all fees they were told about included? 

_____  _____ 

□  Site Visit Test Report Form 

o  Are all questions answered / none left blank? 

_____  _____ 

o  If the voucher tester was told vouchers are not accepted, did the 

tester provide a detailed account of this conversation? 

_____  _____ 

□  Available Rental Unit Form(s) – In-Person 

o  Does each unit meet their needs (i.e., date needed, max rent, size)? 

_____  _____ 

o  Do they have a form for each unit they were told about that met their 

needs?   

_____  _____ 

o  Costs and Incentives – are all fees they were told about included? 

_____  _____ 

□  Narrative (if required) 

o  Is al  the information in the narrative included on their other forms and 

do they match?   

_____  _____ 

o  Is al  the information from the notes included in the narrative and do 

they match? 

_____  _____ 

6. 

Remind the tester to keep an eye on their Google Voice and HDS e-mail account to 

monitor follow-up contact for 14 days after the test completion. Remind the tester to 

complete Follow-Up Contact Forms for any contact they receive.  

_____  _____ 

7. 

Discuss the tester’s availability for future tests and (if possible) brief them on their 

next test or schedule a time to do so. 

_____  _____ 

After both testers have been debriefed (final review): 

Compare forms between T1 and T2 and ask yourself the following questions: 

1. 

Did testers initiate appointment contact in order and within 1 and 24 hours of 

each other? 

Yes  

No  

2. 

Did both testers inquire about the assigned housing?   

Yes  

No  

3.  

Did the voucher tester mention that they had a housing voucher? 

Yes  

No  

4. 

Did both testers only report units that met their needs 

(i.e., date needed, price range, size)? 

Yes  

No  

5. 

Did both testers make their site visit between 1-24 hours and not more than 

48 hours of each other?    

Yes  

No  

6.  

Did both testers follow all other protocols correctly?   

Yes  

No  

7. 

Did both testers fil  out CODE correctly and on time?   

Yes  

No  

After you have answered these questions, do the following: 

1. 

Whether or not the test is acceptable, complete the Final Assessment Form 

2. 

Organize the following documents in one file folder: 

□  briefing checklist 

□  debriefing checklist 

□  Rental Assignment Forms for both testers 

□  tester notes for both testers 

46 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

121

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

3. 

Make sure to clearly label the folder with the test control number and the tester IDs 

4. 

Let your RC know that this test is complete and ready for review. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

47 

122

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR HDS-SOI TESTERS 

 □ Did you thoroughly review your Rental Assignment Form? 

o  Have you memorized the characteristics assigned to you in your profile? 

o  Do you know what size and type of housing that you are requesting? 

o  Have you reviewed the instructions attached to your site visit? 

o  Are you uncomfortable with any assigned characteristics? 

o  Are you confused by any instructions? 

o  Is it possible this housing provider might recognize you? 

o  Is information missing or incomplete? 

□ Do you know where you are going? Do you need further directions to the test site? (When 

you arrive at the test site, it is always a good idea to double  check the address to make 

certain you are at the correct location) 

□ Are you dressed appropriately for the type of test you wil be performing? 

□ Have you allowed enough time for travel to the test site so that you wil arrive on time for 

your appointment? (If something happens that causes a delay and you know you wil  be 

late, call your test coordinator for further instructions) 

□ Do you have a note pad and pen for taking notes? (REMEMBER: NOTE TAKING IS 

MANDATORY!) 

□ Do you have a plan for keeping all test related forms (i.e., your assignment form, paper 

forms for fil ing out CODE, etc.) out of sight in your car while you are on the assignment? 

(Suggestion: Put them in the glove box or under the seat) 

□ Do you have a cell phone with you to call your test coordinator when you have completed 

the test, as well as if any problems should arise? 

□ Have you made arrangements with the test coordinator to start completing test forms in 

CODE within one hour after your site visit? 

□ If you are unable to start on CODE forms within one hour after completing your site visit, do 

you have all of the appropriate paper forms you wil  need? Have you made arrangements to 

transfer the data from the paper forms into CODE within 24 hours of completing your site 

visit? 

□ Have you made arrangements with the test coordinator for debriefing/review of your test 

forms? 

□ Do you remember the key HDS testing guidelines? 

o  Act interested in finding a place to live and be convincing in your role. 

o  Be observant. Remember to take notes and record exact addresses, prices, etc. 

o  Keep an open mind and maintain your objectivity. 

o  Stick to your assignment and put aside your personal tastes, interests and preferences. 

o  Always maintain confidentiality about your testing activities. 

48 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

123

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

o  Do  not  volunteer  too  much  information.  Al ow  the  agent  to  ask  questions  and  inquire 

about your housing needs and qualifications. 

o  If you are ever in doubt about what to do, call the test coordinator. 

o  If  you  experience  insensitive,  inappropriate,  or  discriminatory  treatment,  discuss  your 

concerns with your test coordinator immediately after your test or during your debriefing.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

49 

124

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

APPENDIX I: Testing Report Forms

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms 

TESTER APPLICATION 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

 SECTION 1: APPLICANT’S BASIC INFORMATION 

 Name (First Name Last Name) 

______________________________________ 

Street Address 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

______________________________________ 

Zip Code (00000) 

______________________________________ 

Primary Phone Number [000-000-0000] 

______________________________________ 

E-mail Address 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 2: APPLICANT’S QUALIFICATIONS 

 Do you or a member of your immediate family presently work for, serve on the board of directors of, or 

have a financial interest in any housing industry trade association or companies that are in the business of providing housing or real estate services? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, describe your or your family member’s 

involvement. 

______________________________________ 

If yes, would this involvement or interest prevent you from being objective or reporting your test 

experiences in a fair and unbiased manner? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Do you hold any views, positive or negative, about any segment of the housing industry that would 

prevent you from being objective or reporting your test experiences in a fair, accurate and unbiased 

manner? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

One part of testing is playing an assigned role and assuming characteristics, which are not your own. Do you have any reservations (religious or otherwise) about providing information about yourself that is not true, including marital status, familial status, employment characteristics, and financial characteristics? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

Do your current professional or volunteer activities in the community give you such a high profile that you might be recognized on a test? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

Is there any reason you can think of that might make it difficult for you to maintain confidentiality about your testing activities? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

Aside from anything previously mentioned, is there anything else that might exclude or disqualify you from being a tester? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

Do you have any prior experience using a computer (e.g., word processing, data entry, internet, etc.)? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

50 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   125

A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Please provide your general availability to participate. Select yes or no for each date and time. 

Time 

Sunday  Monday 

Tuesday  Wednesday  Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 

Morning 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

(8-12pm) 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

Afternoon  [ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

(12-4pm) 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

Evening 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] Yes 

(4-8pm) 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

[ ] No 

 Do you have a valid driver’s license? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Do you own or have regular access to a vehicle that 

you can use for testing? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 3: APPLICANT’S PERSONAL INFORMATION 

 Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) 

______________________________________ 

Be sure to pick the year of your birth, not the current year 

Age 

______________________________________ 

Race 

[ ] White 

[ ] Black / African-American 

[ ] Asian / Pacific Islander 

[ ] Other(Specify) 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

National Origin 

[ ] Non-Hispanic 

[ ] Hispanic 

Gender 

[ ] Female 

[ ] Male 

What is your first language? 

[ ] English 

[ ] Spanish 

[ ] Other (Specify) 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

Are you currently employed? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, are you currently employed on a full-time 

or part-time basis? 

[ ] Full-time 

[ ] Part-time 

If you are currently employed, provide the name of 

employer, location, your job title, and length of 

employment. 

______________________________________ 

Please provide a list of previous types of employment:  ______________________________________ 

Are you currently attending school? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, are you currently attending school on a full-time 

or part-time basis? 

[ ] Full-time 

[ ] Part-time 

If you are currently attending school, provide the name 

of school, location, degree you are seeking, and 

program/department. 

______________________________________ 

Highest level of education completed 

[ ] Grade school or less 

[ ] Some high school 

[ ] GED 

[ ] High school diploma 

[ ] Some vocational / technical or business 

school 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

51 

126

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

[ ] Vocational / technical / business certificate / 

diploma 

[ ] Some college 

[ ] Associate degree (AA; AS) 

[ ] Bachelor’s degree (BA; BS) 

[ ] Some graduate/professional school 

[ ] Graduate/professional degree 

Your estimated gross annual income 

[ ] Under $10,000 

[ ] $10,000 - $19,999 

[ ] $20,000 - $29,999  [ ] $30,000 - $39,999 

[ ] $40,000 - $49,999  [ ] $50,000 - $74,999 

[ ] $75,000 - $99,999  [ ] $100,000 or more 

Your family’s estimated gross annual income (i.e., the shared gross annual income of you and all other 

people in the living quarters who are either related to you by birth, marriage, or adoption; or persons with whom you share a romantic relationship): 

[ ] Under $10,000 

[ ] $10,000 - $19,999 

[ ] $20,000 - $29,999  [ ] $30,000 - $39,999 

[ ] $40,000 - $49,999  [ ] $50,000 - $74,999 

[ ] $75,000 - $99,999  [ ] $100,000 or more 

Please provide the name, gender, age, and relationship of all other members of your family (people in the living quarters [not including yourself] who are either related to you by birth, marriage, or adoption; or persons with whom you share a romantic relationship): 

Name

Gender

Age

Relationship to

Applicant

Person 1

[specify]

[ ] Female

[specify]

[specify]

[ ] Male

[The same questions are repeated for the second, third, fourth, and fifth family members] 

 SECTION 4: APPLICANT’S EXPERIENCE AS A HOMESEEKER 

 Length of time at current residence 

[ ] Less than 1 year 

[ ] 1 to 2 years 

[ ] 3 to 5 years   

[ ] 6 to 10 years  

[ ] More than 10 years 

Do you presently rent or own your home? 

[ ] Rent [ ] Own  [ ] Other (Specify) 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

Do you live in shared housing (group home, with 

roommates, etc.)? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Type of dwelling 

[ ] Single-family home – detached 

[ ] Mobile home  

[ ] Apartment 

[ ] Condominium  

[ ] Co-op 

[ ] Duplex or townhouse [ ] Other (Specify) 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

Are you looking to rent or purchase housing at the 

present time or within the next several months? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe. 

______________________________________ 

Are you currently, or have you ever participated 

in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, aka Section 8) 

program? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please describe your participation and include 

which agency the voucher was administered by 

______________________________________ 

Is your rent currently subsidized through any other  

program? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please name and describe the program 

______________________________________ 

52 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

127

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

SECTION 5: APPLICANT’S EXPERIENCE AS A TESTER 

 Have you ever been a tester? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, estimate how many tests you have done 

______________________________________ 

 If yes, what type(s) of testing have you conducted in the past? 

Rental 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Sales 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Lending 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Insurance 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Employment 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Public Accommodation 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Other (Specify) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Other, please specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 6: APPLICATION SUBMISSION 

 Please read each of the following statements carefully and mark your initials to agree to the terms of 

participation as presented. 

I understand that I have voluntarily agreed to participate as a tester in the Housing Discrimination Study – 

SOI (HDS-SOI), which is being conducted by the Urban Institute and sponsored by the U. S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

I agree. Please initial here. ______ 

I agree to maintain complete confidentiality about HDS-SOI, and all of my HDS-SOI testing activities, 

including the names of housing providers I contact, any materials I receive from them or my organization, and the testing protocols for this project. Once the test coordinator notifies me that the project is 

complete, I can talk about my participation; however, I wil  keep confidential information about housing agents I met with during this project. 

I agree. Please initial here. ______ 

Should I choose to end my involvement in the project prior to its completion, I agree to maintain 

confidentiality about HDS-SOI for a period of three (3) years unless direct notice is provided to me by the local testing organization, the Urban Institute, or HUD informing me that HDS-SOI information is no longer confidential. 

I agree. Please initial here. ______ 

I agree that I wil  have no claim against the Urban Institute in the event that unlawful discrimination is indicated or established by my testing experience. 

I agree. Please initial here. ______ 

I have read and signed the HDS-SOI Tester Consent and Limited Waiver Agreement in its entirety and 

agree to the terms of my participation as presented. 

I agree. Please initial here. ______ 

Full name 

______________________________________ 

Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

______________________________________ 

This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 7: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 

 Is this applicant proficient in reading and writing 

in English? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Is this applicant fluent in English? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If fluent in English, does this applicant have a discernible 

accent of any kind? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, describe 

______________________________________ 

Is this applicant's race or ethnicity clearly visibly 

discernible based on their photo? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Is this applicant's race or ethnicity clearly discernible 

based on their name and voice recording? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

53 

128

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Was the applicant selected? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, why not? 

______________________________________ 

For selected applicants, please complete the following information after the tester training: 

 Date tester attended training session (mm/dd/yyyy)  ___/___/_____ 

Name/location of facility 

______________________________________ 

Date tester completed practice test(s) (mm/dd/yyyy) 

___/___/_____ 

Name to be used for testing 

______________________________________ 

Address to be used for testing 

First line of address 

______________________________________ 

Second line of address (city/state/zip) 

______________________________________ 

Google Voice number to be used for testing 

000-000-0000 

______________________________________ 

E-mail address to be used for testing 

______________________________________ 

Additional comments 

______________________________________ 

54 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

129

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

EDIT RENTAL Test Authorization Form 

 Transaction Type 

[auto-fill] 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Ad Id Number 

[auto-fill] 

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) 

___/___/_____ 

Sampler Code 

______________________________________ 

Test Type 

[auto-fill] 

Required Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

Narrative Required 

[auto-fill] 

Random Numbers 

[randomly ordered list of numbers] 

Random Sources 

[randomly ordered list of websites] 

 Geocoding Results from Census 

[auto-fill] 

High poverty or low poverty area 

[ ] High poverty   

[ ] Low poverty 

High poverty or low poverty area is different than 

value returned by Census 

[auto-fill] 

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you 

may state that you are looking in 

______________________________________ 

 Ad Information 

 Date the Ad appeared (mm/dd/yyyy) 

___/___/_____ 

Source Name (choose) 

[list of websites] 

Text of Ad 

______________________________________ 

Address 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

[list of states] 

Zipcode of advertisement 

[list of zip codes] 

 Ad Search Information 

 For each source, enter the amount of advertisements that were reviewed: 

 Craigslit.com 

______________________________________ 

Apartments.com 

______________________________________ 

Move.com 

______________________________________ 

Rent.com 

______________________________________ 

Trulia.com 

______________________________________ 

Zillow.com 

______________________________________ 

ForRent.com 

______________________________________ 

ApartmentGuide.com 

______________________________________ 

Other Source 

______________________________________ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

55 

130

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Contact Information 

 Name of Agent/Company/Complex 

______________________________________ 

Phone Number 1 [000-000-0000] 

______________________________________ 

Extension 1 

______________________________________ 

Phone Number 2 [000-000-0000] 

______________________________________ 

Extension 2 

______________________________________ 

Email 1 

______________________________________ 

Email 2 

______________________________________ 

Ad URL 1 

______________________________________ 

Ad URL 2 

______________________________________ 

Ad URL 3 

______________________________________ 

 Voucher Information 

 Location information: 

______________________________________ 

Did the advertisement include any mention of the HCV 

program / vouchers / voucher holders / Section 8 / the 

Public Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what did the advertisement say? 

[ ] Vouchers/Section 8 welcome 

[ ] No vouchers/Section 8 

[ ] Other 

If other, specify? 

______________________________________ 

Editor Name 

______________________________________ 

Release this test? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

56 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

131

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

ADVANCE CONTACT FORM 

 Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Date the Ad appeared (mm/dd/yyyy) 

[auto-fill] 

Source Name 

[auto-fill] 

Address 

[auto-fill] 

City 

[auto-fill] 

State 

[auto-fill] 

Zipcode of advertisement 

[auto-fill] 

Name of Agent/Company/Complex 

[auto-fill] 

Ad URL 1 

[auto-fill] 

 Contact Information 

Phone Number 1 

[auto-fill] 

Phone Number 2 

[auto-fill] 

Email 1 

[auto-fill] 

Location information: 

[auto-fill] 

 Site Code 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Advance Contact Form Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you 

may state that you are looking in 

[auto-fill from Edit Rental TAF] 

 SECTION 1: CONTACT INFORMATION 

 Please complete one form for each evaluation or contact. 

Who initiated contact? 

[ ] Sampler/ACE 

[ ] Housing Provider 

ACE initials 

______________________________________ 

With whom did you speak (name, if given): 

______________________________________ 

Type of contact: 

[ ] Telephone  [ ] E-mail 

[ ] Text Message 

[ ] Electronic Contact Form 

Telephone number of housing provider 

(If called/text messaged only): 

______________________________________ 

E-mail address of housing provider 

(If e-mailed only): 

______________________________________ 

Date contact was made 

___/___/_____ 

Day of the week that contact was made 

[ ] Mon  [ ] Tues [ ] Wed  [ ] Thurs 

[ ] Fri  [ ] Sat  [ ] Sun 

Time 

___:___ 

[ ] AM  [ ] PM 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

57 

132

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF THE ADVANCE CONTACT 

 Is this the final advance contact?  

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No, and wil  attempt to contact housing 

provider again 

Please note that changes to the 'Final Advance Call' status will delete the existing household 

compositions in the PAF and any assignments that have been created.  

If this is NOT the final advance contact, why not? 

[ ] No answer/kept ringing/went to voicemail 

[ ] Was hung up on 

[ ] Dropped call 

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have 

information 

[ ] Housing provider wil  call back 

[ ] Told to call back later 

[ ] Awaiting response to e-mail / electronic 

contact form / VM 

[ ] Asked to check website / e-mail 

[ ] Asked to contact another number 

[ ] Other 

If other, specify: 

______________________________________ 

58 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

133

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Did you ask the housing provider about available 

housing?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, why not? 

[ ] Another reason approved by Urban 

[ ] Apartment locator service 

[ ] Automatic e-mail response stating recipient is 

unavailable 

[ ] Duplicate ad 

[ ] Exceeds payment standards for test site 

[ ] Housing for older persons 

[ ] Housing for sale 

[ ] Housing provider already tested 

[ ] Housing provider could not be reached after 3 

calls 

[ ] Invalid URL / deleted advertisement 

[ ] Invalid e-mail address 

[ ] Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, 

rancherías, etc.) 

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form) 

[ ] No 2 or 3 bedroom units available 

[ ] No units currently available for rent 

[ ] Other 

[ ] Outside of target area for MSA 

[ ] Outside of zip code area for test site 

[ ] Public housing 

[ ] Share situation 

[ ] Single room occupancy 

[ ] Sublet 

[ ] Telephone number incorrect / no longer in 

service 

[ ] Temporary / short term rental 

If another reason approved by Urban, specify 

______________________________________ 

If other, specify 

______________________________________ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

59 

134

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Did you ask the housing provider if they accept HCV?  

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, why not? 

[ ] Another reason approved by Urban 

[ ] Exceeds payment standards for test site 

[ ] Apartment locator service 

[ ] Broker with upfront fee 

[ ] Housing for older persons 

[ ] Housing for sale 

[ ] Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, 

rancherías, etc.) 

[ ] No 2 or 3 bedroom units available 

[ ] No units currently available for rent 

[ ] Other 

[ ] Outside of target area for MSA 

[ ] Outside of zip code area for test site 

[ ] Public housing 

[ ] Share situation 

[ ] Single room occupancy 

[ ] Sublet 

[ ] Temporary / short term rental 

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form / text) 

If another reason approved by Urban, specify 

______________________________________ 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

If you did ask the housing provider if they accept 

HCV, what were you told? 

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV 

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV 

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but 

not currently 

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but 

with conditions 

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance 

policy 

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form / text) 

[ ] Other 

If the housing provider sometimes accepts HCV 

but not currently, please describe their comments 

______________________________________ 

If the housing provider sometimes accepts HCV 

but with conditions, please describe their comments  ______________________________________ 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

Remember, if voucher denial is the only reason for ineligibility, you will still record information 

about each available unit below.  

If this is the final advance contact and you have determined that this housing is eligible for paired testing or voucher denial is the only reason for ineligibility, please enter information about each available unit (or type of unit, if applicable) below:

60 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

135

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

#

Street

City

State

ZIP

# of

Rent

Date

High- or Low-

Advertised

Does the housing provider

Code

Beds

Price

Available

Poverty area?

Unit?

accept HCV for this unit?

a.

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] 2

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but not currently

[ ] 3

[geocoded]

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV but with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance policy

[ ] Other

[ ] Unknown/Did not inquire

b.

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] 2

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but not currently

[ ] 3

[geocoded]

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV but with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance policy

[ ] Other

[ ] Unknown/Did not inquire

c.

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] 2

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but not currently

[ ] 3

[geocoded]

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV but with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance policy

[ ] Other

[ ] Unknown/Did not inquire

d.

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] 2

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but not currently

[ ] 3

[geocoded]

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV but with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance policy

[ ] Other

[ ] Unknown/Did not inquire

e.

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] 2

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but not currently

[ ] 3

[geocoded]

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Housing provider accepts HCV but with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance policy

[ ] Other

[ ] Unknown/Did not inquire

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

136

61 

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Type of building? 

[ ] Apartment Building - 4 or fewer units 

[ ] Apartment Building - 5 to 50 units 

[ ] Apartment Building – 51 or more units 

[ ] Duplex 

[ ] Mobile Home 

[ ] Single-family Home 

[ ] Unsure / don’t know 

What are the office hours? 

______________________________________ 

Does the agent/rental office accept appointments? 

[ ] Must make an appointment 

[ ] Option of an appointment or dropping-by 

[ ] No appointment, but may drop-by 

Verify the address to be visited: 

______________________________________ 

Highest monthly rent of available unit 

______________________________________ 

When you asked the housing provider which utilities 

were included in the rent, what were you told? 

[ ] ALL utilities included in rent 

[ ] SOME utilities included in rent 

[ ] NO utilities included in rent 

[ ] Housing provider unsure / unable to answer 

Is the assigned address in a low poverty or high 

poverty area? 

[ ] Not Coded 

[ ] High poverty 

[ ] Low poverty 

Identify the Public Housing Authority with jurisdiction 

at this address 

[list of Public Housing Authorities] 

Please note that any time you change the PHA, you will need to resave the form to ensure that the 

correct payment standards are returned by the CODE system. To retrieve the correct payment 

standards click here. Also note that changes to an Advance Contact Form for the final contact are 

written to the PAF and will delete the existing PAF and any assignments that have been created. 

Select Payment Standard for this Unit: 

[ ] 2 Bedroom Payment Standard 

[ ] 3 Bedroom Payment Standard 

Please note that changes to the Payment Standard will delete the existing PAF and any 

assignments that have been created. 

Number of Bedrooms for this test 

[ ] 2 bedrooms  [ ] 3 bedrooms 

Please note that changes to the number of bedrooms will delete the existing PAF and any 

assignments that have been created 

 SECTION 3: COMMENTS 

 Did the agent make any comments about the HCV 

program / vouchers / voucher holders / Section 8, 

including why vouchers are accepted / denied? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what did the agent say? 

[ ] Vouchers/Section 8 welcome 

[ ] No vouchers/Section 8 

[ ] Other 

If other, specify 

______________________________________ 

Did the agent make any comments about the Public 

Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

62 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

137

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

 After you asked about voucher acceptance, did the housing provider ask for any of the following 

information? 

 How many bedrooms your voucher was for? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

The age(s) of your child/children? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

How much rent your voucher was for? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

How much of the rent you would have to pay? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If your voucher included utilities? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

When your voucher expires? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If you had a job or where you work? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

How you would come up with the money for the 

security deposit / move-in fees? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

The inspection / approval of the housing by the Public 

Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what did they say? 

______________________________________ 

Narrative: 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Please note that changes to the completion status of this form will delete the existing PAF and 

any assignments that have been created. 

 SECTION 5: RC APPROVAL 

 RC Approval 

[ ] Yes, unit is in sampled ZIP 

[ ] Yes, unit is not in sampled ZIP 

[ ] No 

If no, why not? 

[ ] Housing provider deemed ineligible 

[ ] Other 

[ ] Practice test 

[ ] Protocol violation 

[ ] Test forms incomplete by ACE 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

RC Notes 

______________________________________ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

63 

138

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

TEST AUTHORIZATION FORM 

 Transaction Type 

[auto-fill] 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Ad Number 

[auto-fill] 

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) 

[auto-fill] 

Sampler Code 

[auto-fill] 

Test Type 

[auto-fill] 

Sequence Requirement 

[auto-fill] 

Narrative Requirement 

[auto-fill] 

Ad Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

[auto-fill] 

Source Name 

[auto-fill] 

Text of Ad 

[auto-fill] 

Ad URL 1 

[auto-fill] 

Release this test?  

[auto-fill] 

64 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

139

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FORM 

 Changes in the PAF for will delete the assignments. 

Transaction Type 

[auto-fill] 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Test Type 

[auto-fill] 

Advertisement URL 

[auto-fill] 

 Housing Provider Information 

Name of Agent/Company/Complex 

[auto-fill] 

Street 

[auto-fill] 

City 

[auto-fill] 

State 

[auto-fill] 

Zip Code (00000) 

[auto-fill] 

 Contact Information 

Phone Number [000-000-0000] 

[auto-fill] 

Alt. Phone Number [000-000-0000] 

[auto-fill] 

E-mail Address 

[auto-fill] 

 Housing Information 

Note: 'Number of bedrooms' and 'PHA' have been entered in the final Advance Contact Form. 

PHA for this test 

[auto-fill] 

Number of bedrooms to request 

[auto-fill] 

Available Household Composition for this PHA 

[list of Household Composition options] 

Once you have selected the household composition for this test, click here to generate the 

household members for this test 

 Family Composition 

Family Composition: Children’s ages and gender: 

Child 1  Sex [M/F] 

Age [7-12] 

Child 2  Sex [M/F] 

Age [7-12] 

Child 3  Sex [M/F] 

Age [7-12] 

Child 4  Sex [M/F] 

Age [7-12] 

Payment Standard 

Payment Standard for this Unit from ACE Form 

[auto-fill] 

High poverty or low poverty area from ACE Form 

[auto-fill] 

Included Utilities from ACE Form 

[auto-fill] 

Highest Monthly Rent of Available Unit 

[auto-fill] 

 Testers and Availability 

Select the testers that wil  be used for this test 

[Tester 1] 

[Tester 2] 

Wil  testers portray mothers or grandmothers? 

[ ] Mothers 

[ ] Grandmothers 

Move-in date to request 

______________________________________ 

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you 

may state that you are looking in 

[auto-fil  from ACE Form] 

 Test Status 

Narrative Requirement 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Test Released 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

65 

140

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

RENTAL ASSIGNMENT FORM

 System Test Information 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Tester Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

Transaction Type 

[auto-fill] 

Tester Type 

[auto-fill] 

Change this Tester from randomly assigned 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Reason that this Tester is being changed 

______________________________________ 

Randomly Assigned Tester 

[auto-fill] 

Target date and time of first appointment call 

______________________________________ 

Target date and time for scheduling appointment 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT TESTER’S HOUSEHOLD 

 Household Composition 

[auto-fill] 

Tester wil  portray a mother or grandmother? 

[auto-fill] 

Household Income 

Gross Monthly Income 

Gross Annual Income 

Tester 

[auto-fill] 

[auto-fill] 

 Children

Name

Sex

Age

Child 1

[auto-fil ]

[auto-fil ]

[The same information is provided for up to four children] 

 EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 

Tester’s current occupation: 

______________________________________ 

Name of tester’s current employer: 

______________________________________ 

First line of tester’s employer’s address: 

______________________________________ 

Second line of tester’s employer’s address: 

______________________________________ 

Length of employment at current job: 

[2 – 15 years] 

 CURRENT RENTAL HOUSING SITUATION 

Total Amount of Current Rent 

[auto-fill] 

Tenant Portion of Current Rent 

[auto-fill] 

Housing Assistance Portion of Current Rent 

[auto-fill] 

Voucher Expiration Date 

__/__/____ 

Years at Current Residence 

[2 – 15 years] 

Tester owns a car? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Reason for Moving? 

[ ] Ad sounded like something I’d be interested in 

[ ] Had to move while landlord is remodeling 

[ ] Landlord wants to rent to family member / 

friend 

[ ] Lived at current apartment long enough; 

ready for change 

[ ] No reason, just would like a new place 

[ ] Owner selling building; want to start looking 

now 

[ ] Would like to be settled before school starts 

66 

A P

H IL

O O

U T S

SI TNUD

G  Y O

D I F L

SCAN

R I DL

M O

I R

N D A

A T ICC

O E

N P T

AAN

G C

A E O

IN F H

S T   OHUS

O IN

U G C

S IN HGO IC

C E VO

H O I U

C CEH E

V RS

O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

141

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS 

Type of current housing: 

Renting, 12 month lease 

Credit standing: 

Good, no late payments 

History of rent payment at current residence: 

Always on time 

Other characteristics: 

Non-smoking, no pets 

Other places visited: 

Just started looking 

 SECTION 2: ASSIGNED HOUSING 

 INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING PROVIDER 

Name of Agent/Company/Complex (if known) 

[auto-fill] 

Street 

[auto-fill] 

City 

[auto-fill] 

State 

[auto-fill] 

Zip Code (00000) 

[auto-fill] 

Contact information for test site: 

First listed telephone number 

[auto-fill] 

Second listed telephone number 

[auto-fill] 

First listed e-mail address 

[auto-fill] 

Second listed e-mail address 

[auto-fill] 

Advertisement: Name of source 

[auto-fill] 

Advertisement: Date of Publication 

[auto-fill] 

Advertisement: Text of Ad 

[auto-fill] 

Advertisement: URL 

[auto-fill] 

 TYPE OF HOUSING TO BE REQUESTED 

Assigned Minimum Number of Bedrooms 

[auto-fill] 

Remember, for HDS-SOI, all testers can consider units with bedroom sizes greater than their 

Assigned Minimum Number of Bedrooms so long as the units are available on or within three 

weeks after their assigned move-in date and are at or below the assigned maximum rent.  

Move-in date to request 

[auto-fill] 

Maximum Rent Price 

[auto-fill] 

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, 

you may say that you are looking in 

[auto-fill] 

Remember: You are always open to considering any areas recommended by the agent. 

Source of Security Deposit: If you are pressed by the 

agent, you may say that funds for the security deposit 

can be attained from 

______________________________________ 

Voucher Testers: If you are pressed by the agent, you 

may say that your Public Housing Authority is 

______________________________________ 

Voucher Testers: If you are pressed by the agent, you 

may say that you have been a voucher holder since 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 3: TESTER’S INFORMATION 

 Tester Name 

[auto-fill] 

Phone Number [000-000-0000] 

[auto-fill] 

E-mail Address 

[auto-fill] 

National Origin 

[auto-fill] 

Tester’s Race 

[auto-fill] 

Tester’s Age 

[auto-fill]

1. 

HCV PROGRAM REMINDERS: 

The Housing Choice Voucher program provides a subsidy used to pay a portion of a low-income family’s 

monthly rent. “Housing Choice Voucher” / “HCV program” are formal names and the program used to be called A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

67 

142

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

“Section 8”. For any given test, testers may be assigned to portray a voucher holder and wil   tell housing providers they have a voucher at the beginning of their appointment contact and in-person site visit. If housing providers prefer to use another term such as “Section 8,” testers wil  continue to use the term suggested by the housing provider. 

Testers posing as voucher holders wil  never ask housing providers if they accept vouchers and wil  never describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-bedroom voucher,” unless the housing provider 

directly asks how many bedrooms the voucher is for. 

Testers posing as voucher holders wil  portray current voucher holders looking for a new unit. That means that your family was on a waitlist at one point, met initial program eligibility requirements, was issued a voucher, and continues to meet eligibility requirements. 

Testers wil  always be moving within their initial PHA’s jurisdiction and wil  not be porting out. Voucher testers wil  be assigned a voucher expiration date which wil  always be at least 60 days from the date of the test. 

Testers will  never sign a lease but it’s important that voucher testers understand that unit inspections  are required for units rented by actual families with vouchers. 

Testers posing as voucher holders wil  not need to estimate the amount of their utility allowance but a housing provider may ask how voucher testers wil  cover the cost of utilities. If asked, the voucher tester can say that the PHA currently provides a utility allowance to help cover the cost of utilities that aren’t included in the rent and that an allowance wil  be calculated by the PHA once the unit inspection is completed. 

Al  testers wil  be provided with their annual income, monthly income, current rent amount, and maximum 

amount of rent they are able to pay for the new unit. Testers posing as voucher holders wil  also be told what they currently pay (Total Tenant Payment, TTP) and what the PHA currently pays (Housing Assistance Payment, HAP) for their current unit. 

Al  testers wil  be assigned a minimum number of bedrooms related to their household composition. Testers wil never inquire about units with fewer bedrooms than their assigned minimum number of bedrooms. Testers can consider units with bedroom sizes greater than their assigned minimum number of bedrooms so long as the 

units are available to you on or within three weeks after their assigned move-in date and are at or below the assigned maximum rent.  

2. 

GOOGLE VOICE INSTRUCTIONS 

If you are contacting a housing provider via telephone, place the cal  to the housing provider using your assigned HDS Google Voice number. 

To make a call with Google Voice through a computer: 

1.  Log in to Google Voice at voice.google.com 

2.  In the upper left-hand corner, click the red Call button, which wil  prompt a box to appear. 

3.  Type in the number you wish to call, and choose the forwarding telephone you’d like to call with. 

4.  Click Connect. Google wil  now call the forwarding telephone you selected in Step 3. 

5.  Pick up the call when it rings. Google wil  connect you with the number you typed in Step 3. 

To make a call with Google Voice from one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones: 

1.  Use one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones, and dial your Google Voice number. 

2.  When prompted, enter your pin number and press #. 

3.  Follow the voice instructions to make an outgoing call by pressing 2. 

4.  Dial the number you wish to call. 

5.  Google Voice wil  connect you. 

To make a call with Google Voice from a telephone not associated with your Google Voice account: 

1.  Dial your Google Voice number from any phone. 

2.  When you reach your voice message, hit *. 

3.  When prompted, enter your pin. 

4.  You wil  be prompted to enter the forwarding phone number associated with your Google Voice 

account and then #. 

5.  To place a call, press 2. 

6.  Enter the phone number you’d like to dial followed by #.  

3. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-SOI APPOINTMENT CONTACT: 

Contact the housing provider listed in the advertisement and request information about housing that meets your needs and an appointment to meet with someone to discuss the housing mentioned during the telephone call. 

You should always contact the housing provider by telephone unless the advertisement does not include a 

telephone number, in which case you wil  be directed to use e-mail or an electronic contact form. You need not make your appointment with any particular agent. 

68 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

143

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Making appointment contact: 

There are two key goals to keep in mind when contacting a housing provider: 

1.  Obtain information about all available housing that meets your needs 

2.  Request an appointment to view housing that meets your needs 

•  If, during the first two calls, you cannot reach a housing provider, you wil  not leave a message. If, on the third attempt, you are stil  unable to reach a housing provider, you wil  leave a message. All testers will leave their first and last name and assigned Google Voice number in the message. Voucher testers must explain that they have a voucher during the voice message.  Testers assigned a voucher wil  not ask if vouchers are accepted and wil  not describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-bedroom 

voucher,” unless directly asked how many bedrooms the voucher is for. You must alert your test 

coordinator immediately after leaving a telephone message. If you do not receive a return call within 24 

hours after leaving the message, you must call the housing provider a fourth time, but this time you should not leave a message. Once you make the fourth call, you should advise your test coordinator. 

•  If you reach the housing provider (or if the housing provider returns your call), voucher testers must explain that they have a voucher at the outset of this conversation. Testers assigned a voucher wil not ask if vouchers are accepted and wil  not describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-bedroom voucher,” unless directly asked how many bedrooms the voucher is for. 

•  It is essential that you take notes during the appointment contact.  You wil  need these notes in order to fil  out test forms   after the appointment contact has been completed. 

All testers will inquire about the availability of Assigned Housing, explicitly referring to: 

A.  The specific advertised unit (if applicable) from your Rental Assignment Form 

AND 

B.  Your assigned minimum number of bedrooms 

You wil  NOT explicitly mention a maximum rent, move-in date, or minimum number of bedrooms but wil  

instead refer to these characteristics internally to filter acceptable units from the agent’s response.  If, however, you are asked directly about your maximum rent, desired move-in date or minimum number of bedrooms, you may respond with this information.  

Regardless of whether there are available units with your assigned minimum number of bedrooms, you 

must ask the agent if there are any other units available. Again, internally refer to your maximum rent, move-in date, and minimum number of bedrooms to filter out which units meet your needs. Obtain information about and make an appointment to view all units that meet your needs: 

ü  Have at least the assigned minimum number of bedrooms needed for your household 

ü  Are within your maximum rent 

ü  Are available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date 

Goal #1: Obtain information about available housing 

There are 10 crucial pieces of information you must obtain for every unit that meets your needs: 

Unit Information 

Whenever you are informed about rental housing that meets your needs (i.e., has at least your assigned 

minimum number of bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date), document the following for each unit you are told about: 1.  Exact address 

2.  Number of bedrooms 

3.  Date of availability 

If the agent confirmed a unit available outside your move-in date would work for you, the date of availability should be recorded as the move-in date the agent agreed would work.  

Rent and Fees 

You must record the monthly rent amount based on a 12-month lease for each unit you’re told about, as well as fees associated with moving in and renting the unit. Include non-mandatory fees  (fees for pets, optional amenities, optional parking, etc.) in your notes and narrative (if applicable) but only mandatory fees (fees that must  be paid to move into and reside in the unit) wil  be recorded on your Available Rental Unit Form(s) - 

Telephone. 

4.  Rent ($/month) 

5.  Security deposit (if any) 

6.  Other fees (if any) 

Do  not ask about incentives (reduced rent, waived fees, etc.) but document any incentives you’re told about. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

69 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

144

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Utilities 

You must ask about utilities.  Do not ask about amenities (gym, pool, etc.) but document any amenities you’re told about. Specifically, you must find out: 

7.  Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list) 

Application Process 

You wil  ask about the application process and whether a credit check is required.  Do not ask for an 

application or about other types of background checks.  However,   document whether the housing provider offered to send you an application or directed you to an online application and if you were told about other background check requirements. If the housing provider offers to send you an application, have them send it to your assigned HDS e-mail account. You must find out: 

8.  Whether an application is required (Y/N) 

9.  Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N) - If yes, how much is it? 

10.  Whether a credit check is required (Y/N) 

You may have to ask for some of the 10 crucial pieces of information listed above if it is not volunteered. 

Goal #2: Request an appointment to view housing that meets your needs  

If there is at least one unit that meets your needs (i.e., has at least your assigned minimum number of 

bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three weeks after your 

assigned move-in date), you should request an appointment to meet with an agent to view units on the 

day/time assigned by your test coordinator. You wil  need to capture the following specific information about your appointment: 

1.  Date, day and time of the appointment 

2.  Name of the person with whom you wil  meet 

3.  Address and meeting location (agent’s office, a specific unit, other) 

Notify your test coordinator of your appointment. 

•  If the agent tells you that no rental housing is available that meets your needs, thank the agent and ask for her or his name if you do not already have it. Notify the test coordinator after your contact with the agent. 

•  If you receive a text message from a housing provider, you may respond with a text message. However, 

you should never initiate communication with a housing provider via text. 

•  Always thank the person you speak with for their assistance and ask for their name if it has not been provided by the end of your call. 

If your test coordinator authorizes you to e-mail or electronically contact the housing provider, send only one email from your assigned HDS e-mail account. Alert your test coordinator so that the e-mail account can be monitored. Use the text or language that has been provided to you by your test coordinator, and inquire about making an appointment to view the advertised rental housing from your Rental Assignment Form. Voucher testers will be directed to mention that they have a voucher  in their e-mail/electronic contact form message.  After the initial e-mail/electronic contact, your interaction with a housing provider may proceed via email or may continue on the telephone. 

4. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-SOI IN-PERSON SITE VISITS: 

At the outset of your site visit, voucher testers must tell the housing provider that they have a voucher.  

•  It is essential that you take notes during the in-person site visit.  You wil  need these notes in order to fil  out test forms   after the in-person site visit has been completed. 

•  Al  testers wil  inquire about and ask to view the housing you discussed during appointment contact. 

•  After inquiring about the housing discussed during appointment contact, and regardless of whether such housing is stil  available, you must  ALWAYS ask about the availability of other units with your assigned housing characteristics. 

•  Assigned Housing includes units that: 

ü  Have at least the assigned minimum number of bedrooms needed for your household 

ü  Are within your maximum rent 

ü  Are available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date 

There are 12 crucial pieces of information you must obtain for every unit that meets your needs: 

Unit Information 

Whenever you are informed about rental housing that meets your needs (i.e., is  at least your assigned 

minimum number of bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date), document the following for each unit you are shown or told about: 

70 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

145

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

1.  Exact address 

2.  Unit number 

3.  Floor number 

4.  Number of bedrooms 

5.  Date of availability 

If the agent confirmed a unit available outside your move-in date would work for you, the date of availability should be recorded as the move-in date the agent agreed would work. 

Rent and Fees 

You must record the monthly rent amount based on a 12-month lease for each unit you’re told about, as well as fees associated with moving in and renting the unit. Include non-mandatory fees  (fees for pets, optional amenities, optional parking, etc.) in your notes and narrative (if applicable) but only mandatory fees (fees that must be paid to move into and reside in the unit) wil  be recorded on your Available Rental Unit Form(s) – Site Visit. 6.  Rent ($/month) 

7.  Security deposit (if any) 

8.  Other fees (if any) 

Do  not ask about incentives (reduced rent, waived fees, etc.) but document any incentives you’re told about. 

Utilities 

You must ask about utilities.  Do not ask about amenities (gym, pool, etc.) but document any amenities you’re told about. Specifically, you must find out: 

9.  Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list) 

Application Process 

You wil  ask about the application process and whether a credit check is required.  Do not ask for an 

application or about other types of background checks.  However, document whether an application was offered to you and if you were told about other background check requirements. If an application is offered, you may take it with you. You must find out: 

10.  Whether an application is required (Y/N) 

11.  Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N) - If yes, how much is it? 

12.  Whether a credit check is required (Y/N) 

You may have to ask for some of the 12 crucial pieces of information listed above if it is not volunteered. 

If you are asked to sign a guest log or complete a guest card, you may do so using the information from your Rental Assignment Form, making sure to use your HDS-assigned e-mail and Google Voice number. 

Do not initiate, suggest or offer to make any arrangements for future contact with the rental agent. As a tester, you may thank a rental agent for his or her assistance, but you must refrain from suggesting that you wil get back to the agent or that the agent should contact you. Make sure to obtain the name of the rental agent if it has not been provided by the end of the in-person site visit and notify your test coordinator upon completion of the site visit. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

71 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

146

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

APPOINTMENT CONTACT FORM 

 Site 

[auto-fill] 

Transaction Type 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Tester type 

[auto-fill] 

Appointment Contact Form Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION 

Who initiated contact? 

[ ] Tester initiated to conduct test 

[ ] Tester initiated to cancel test 

[ ] Tester initiated to confirm appointment 

[ ] Housing provider 

Type of contact 

[ ] Telephone 

[ ] E-mail 

[ ] Electronic Contact Form 

[ ] Text Message 

Date that contact was attempted 

___/___/_____ 

Day of the week that contact was attempted 

[ ] Mon  [ ] Tues [ ] Wed  [ ] Thurs 

[ ] Fri  [ ] Sat  [ ] Sun 

Start time 

___:___ 

[ ] AM  [ ] PM 

End time 

___:___ 

[ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Name of housing provider, if given 

______________________________________ 

Telephone number of housing provider 

(if called/text messaged only) [000-000-0000] 

______________________________________ 

E-mail address of housing provider 

(if e-mailed only) 

______________________________________ 

  SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF CONTACT 

 If you initiated contact to confirm a previously 

scheduled appointment, were you able to reach the 

housing provider? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what were you told? 

[ ] Housing provider would keep the appointment 

[ ] Housing provider would not keep the 

appointment 

If the housing provider would not keep the appointment, 

what did they tell you? 

[ ] Housing provider offered to reschedule 

[ ] Housing provider would not reschedule 

[ ] Housing provider had no units available for 

rent 

[ ] Housing provider offered unit info over the 

telephone 

[ ] Other 

72 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

147

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

Were you able to reach someone who was able to 

provide housing information? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, why not? 

[ ] Dropped call 

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have 

information 

[ ] No answer, left message (3rd call) 

[ ] No answer, did not leave message (1st, 2nd or 

4th call) 

[ ] No answer / kept ringing / went to VM but 

unable to leave message 

[ ] No response in 24 hours to e-mail / electronic 

contact form 

[ ] Telephone number incorrect / no longer in 

service 

[ ] Told housing provider wil  call back 

[ ] Told to call another location 

[ ] Told to call back later 

[ ] Was hung up on (after disclosure of voucher) 

[ ] Was hung up on (no disclosure of voucher) 

[ ] Other 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 3: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Delete this record (for TC use only) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

73 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

148

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

TELEPHONE REPORT FORM – HDS-SOI 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Tester Type 

[auto-fill] 

 Were you assigned a voucher for this test? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING 

 Voucher tester: Did you tell the agent that you have a 

voucher before receiving specific unit information 

(e.g. unit availability, rent rates, etc.)? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If you did not tell the agent that you had a voucher before 

receiving specific unit information, why not? 

______________________________________ 

Did the agent mention if vouchers are accepted 

by the property? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what did the agent say 

[ ] Yes, vouchers accepted 

[ ] No, vouchers not accepted 

[ ] Agent had to check to see if vouchers accepted 

[ ] Agent didn’t know and did not offer to find out 

[ ] Something else 

If the agent made any comments regarding the 

property’s voucher policy, please describe 

______________________________________ 

After voucher disclosure, did the agent provide you 

with housing information? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, please describe this conversation in detail 

______________________________________ 

All testers: Did you obtain information about housing? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, why not? 

[ ] Agent suggested we communicate in person 

[ ] Agent wasn’t knowledgeable about housing 

details 

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider 

[ ] Voucher tester: After disclosure, agent wouldn’t 

give info 

[ ] Other 

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

Information on persons with whom you spoke: 

Name

Position

Perceived Race /

Sex /

Perceived Age  Primary Person Who

Ethnicity

Gender

Group

Provided Info

Person 1

[specify]

[specify]

White, Black, Hispanic,

[ ] Female

18-30, 31-45,

[ ] Yes

Asian/PI, Amer. Ind.,

[ ] Male

46-65, Over

[ ] No

Other, Don’t Know

65, Don’t

Know

[The same questions are repeated for the second and third persons contacted] 

SECTION 2: AVAILABILITY OF UNITS 

 How many TOTAL units were you told were available that 

had at least your minimum number of bedrooms, were 

available when you need them, and were at or below 

your maximum rent? 

______________________________________ 

74 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

149

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

If no units were available, were you offered to be placed 

on a waiting list? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 3: APPLICATION INFORMATION 

 Did the agent inform you that any of the following were necessary for the application process? 

Application form 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Credit check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Co-signer 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Criminal background check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Eviction check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Did the agent offer to send you a copy of the application?  [ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Did the agent suggest you apply on-line or give you the 

website address for the application? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 4: QUALIFICATIONS 

 Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by the agent, or not obtained by the agent. 

Your marital status 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your household size / composition 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your income (i.e. how much you make)  

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your source of income 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your occupation (i.e. your type of job)  

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your employer (i.e. who you work for)  

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your length of employment 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your credit standing 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your rent history, including evictions 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your contact information (e.g. telephone, e-mail, 

address, driver license) 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Other 

[ ] I volunteered  [ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Agent did not obtain 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

75 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

150

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 5: COMMENTS 

 ALL TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the following: 

 Minimum or maximum income requirements (monthly or 

annual)? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Whether you are qualified to rent the unit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the  comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open 

Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Race or ethnicity? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How you would come up with the money for the 

security deposit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Mandatory renter’s insurance? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

 VOUCHER TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the 

following: 

 Public housing / the Public Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Vouchers in general/ the HCV program /the Section 

8 program/ voucher holders? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

The inspection/approval of the housing by the 

Public Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

The dollar value of your voucher? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How much of the rent you would pay / the housing 

agency would pay? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

If your voucher includes utilities? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How many bedrooms your voucher was for? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

When your voucher expires? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

 ALL TESTERS – GENERAL COMMENTS 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 6: APPOINTMENT INFORMATION 

Were you able to obtain an appointment? 

[ ] No 

[ ] Yes, appointment was scheduled 

76 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

151

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

[ ] Yes, appointment was confirmed (previously 

scheduled) 

If no, why not? 

[ ] No units were available / nothing to show 

[ ] Agent hung up / refused to schedule 

appointment / did not recommend the unit(s) 

[ ] Housing provider cancelled appointment, 

suggested rescheduling 

[ ] Housing provider cancelled appointment, did not 

reschedule 

[ ] Leasing office / agent too busy within the 

upcoming week 

[ ] Other 

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider 

If other, specify: 

______________________________________ 

If you were able to obtain an appointment, please complete the section below. 

Date 

___/___/_____ 

Day of the appointment 

[ ] Mon  [ ] Tues  [ ] Wed  [ ] Thurs 

[ ] Fri  [ ] Sat  [ ] Sun 

Time 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Name of the person you have arranged to meet with 

______________________________________ 

Location of meeting 

[ ] Agent’s office 

[ ] Address of specific home 

[ ] Other 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

Address of meeting 

Name of test site 

(Agent/Company/Complex, if known) 

______________________________________ 

Meeting address 

______________________________________ 

Suite number (if applicable) 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

______________________________________ 

Zip Code (00000) 

______________________________________ 

SECTION 7: NARRATIVE 

______________________________________ 

SECTION 8: FORM SUBMISSION 

This form is complete: 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Timestamp 

______________________________________ 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

77 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

152

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (TELEPHONE) 

 Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID Number 

[auto-fill] 

Tester type 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Available Unit Form Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT 

 Where was the information obtained? 

[ ] Described by agent over the telephone 

(Check all that apply) 

[ ] E-mail from agent 

[ ] Website 

Address of Available Unit 

Address of unit 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

______________________________________ 

Zip Code (00000) 

______________________________________ 

Number of bedrooms: 

[ ] 2 bedrooms  [ ] 2 bedrooms + den 

[ ] 3 bedrooms  [ ] 3 bedrooms + den 

[ ] Other 

If Other, please specify 

______________________________________ 

Date available 

___/___/_____ 

 SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES 

 Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit. 

How much is the rent? ($___/month) 

______________________________________ 

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be 

applied toward your rent if you were approved? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount of the fee 

______________________________________ 

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? 

[ ] Yes – choice of security deposit or surety 

bond 

[ ] Yes – security deposit 

[ ] Yes – surety bond 

[ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount accordingly: 

Security deposit amount 

______________________________________ 

Surety bond amount 

______________________________________ 

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be 

applied toward your security deposit / surety bond if 

you were approved? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount of the fee 

______________________________________ 

Is a non-refundable application fee required? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the application fee amount: 

______________________________________ 

78 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

153

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Where you told about any additional mandatory fees?  [ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Name of first mandatory fee 

[ ] Administrative/processing fee 

[ ] Agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee 

[ ] Amenity fee (access to gym, pool, etc.) 

[ ] Cleaning/pest control fee 

[ ] Credit/background check fee (separate from 

application fee) 

[ ] Fee to hold housing off the market/reservation 

fee 

[ ] HOA/condo fee 

[ ] Key/lock/access fee (for first set) 

[ ] Maintenance fee 

[ ] Move-in fee 

[ ] Other fee 

[ ] Parking/garage fee 

[ ] Township/vil age/borough fee 

If Other, specify: 

______________________________________ 

Is this a one-time/annual or monthly fee? 

[ ] One-time/annual 

[ ] Monthly 

Amount of fee 

______________________________________ 

 [The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth mandatory fees] 

 Incentives: Please carefully record all incentives related to renting this available unit. 

Were you told about any incentives available to you if you decide to apply and rent the unit right away? 

(Do not include incentives available if you refer a friend or if you rent the apartment before your assigned move-in date. If the agent offered a free month’s rent amortized over the length of the lease, record this only as a free month’s rent.) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Name of first incentive 

[ ] Gift card/cash back 

[ ] Reduced/waived administrative/processing 

fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived 

agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived amenity fee (access to gym, 

pool, etc.) 

[ ] Reduced/waived application fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived cleaning/pest control fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived Credit/background check fee 

(separate from application fee) 

[ ] Reduced/waived fee to hold housing 

/reservation fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived HOA/condo fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived Key/lock/access fee (for first 

set) (for first set) 

[ ] Reduced/waived maintenance fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived move-in fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived other fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived parking/garage fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (free months) 

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (monthly reduction) 

[ ] Reduced/waived security deposit 

[ ] Reduced/waived township/vil age/borough fee 

If Other, specify: 

______________________________________ 

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly incentive? 

[ ] One-time/annual 

[ ] Monthly 

Amount of incentive: 

______________________________________ 

 [The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth incentives] 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

79 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

154

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

 SECTION 3: COMMENTS 

 Did the housing provider make any of the following 

comments about the building and/or surrounding 

neighborhood? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Noise 

[ ] Quiet [ ] Noisy 

[ ] No comment 

Safety 

[ ] Safe/low crime 

[ ] Dangerous/high crime 

[ ] No comment 

Schools 

[ ] Good 

[ ] Poor 

[ ] No comment 

Services / Maintenance / Amenities 

[ ] Good services/maintenance/amenities 

[ ] Poor services/maintenance/amenities 

[ ] No comment 

Did the housing provider make any comments about 

this particular unit/building? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

General comments 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Delete this record (TC use only) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Geocoding for Address 

[auto-fill geocoding results] 

80 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

155

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM 

 Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Week 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Tester Type 

[auto-fill] 

Were you assigned a voucher for this test? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING 

 Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known)  ______________________________________ 

Address of leasing office 

______________________________________ 

Suite number (if applicable) 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

______________________________________ 

Zip Code (00000) 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 2: DATE AND TIME OF SITE VISIT 

 Date 

___/___/_____ 

Day of Week 

[ ] Mon  [ ] Tues  [ ] Wed  [ ] Thurs 

[ ] Fri  [ ] Sat  [ ] Sun 

Appointment Time 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Time began (office arrival) 

Arrival time 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Time greeted by staff/agent (if applicable) 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Time began meeting with agent (if applicable) 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

Time ended (departure) 

Departure Time 

___:___ [ ] AM  [ ] PM 

 SECTION 3: INFORMATION ON PERSONS WITH WHOM YOU HAD CONTACT DURING YOUR VISIT 

Name

Position

Perceived Race /

Sex /

Perceived

Primary Person Who

Ethnicity

Gender

Age Group

Provided Info

Person 1

[specify]

[specify]

White, Black,

[ ] Female

18-30, 31-45,  [ ] Yes

Hispanic, Asian/PI,

[ ] Male

46-65, Over

[ ] No

Amer. Ind., Other,

65

Don’t Know

[The same questions are repeated for the second, third, fourth, and fifth persons met during the site visit] 

Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss 

housing options? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If No, why not? 

______________________________________ 

Did you meet with the agent: 

[ ] Individually (i.e., one-on-one) 

[ ] In a group (i.e., with at least one other 

homeseeker) 

Voucher tester: Did you indicate to the housing provider 

that you have a voucher before receiving specific 

unit information (e.g. unit availability, rent rates, etc.)? 

[ ] Yes [ ] No 

If you did not tell the agent that you had a voucher 

before receiving specific unit information, why not? 

______________________________________ 

Did the agent mention if vouchers are accepted 

by the property? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what did the agent say? 

[ ] Yes, vouchers accepted 

[ ] No, vouchers not accepted 

[ ] Agent had to check with someone else to see if 

vouchers accepted 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

81 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

156

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

[ ] Agent didn’t know if vouchers accepted, and did 

not offer to find out 

[ ] Something else 

If the agent made any comments regarding the 

property’s voucher policy, please describe 

______________________________________ 

After voucher disclosure, did the agent provide you 

with housing information? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If no, please describe this conversation in detail 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 4: AVAILABILITY OF UNITS 

 How many TOTAL units were you told were available that 

had at least your minimum number of bedrooms, were 

available when you need them, and were at or below 

your maximum rent? 

______________________________________ 

How many TOTAL units did you inspect? 

(Model units inspected should be included in this total.) 

______________________________________ 

If no units were available, were you offered to be 

placed on a waiting list? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 5: APPLICATION INFORMATION 

 Did the agent inform you that any of the following were necessary for the application process?  

Application form 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No  

Credit check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Co-signer 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Criminal background check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Eviction check 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Did the agent ask you to complete an application 

(either in-person or online) during your visit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Did the agent give you an application to take with you 

or invite you to apply online? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

 SECTION 6: QUALIFICATIONS 

 Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by the agent, exchanged in a prior contact, or not obtained by the agent. 

Your marital status 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your household size / composition 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your income (i.e. how much you make)  

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your source of income 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not   

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your occupation (i.e. your type of job)  

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

82 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

157

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Your employer (i.e. who you work for)  

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not   

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your length of employment 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your credit standing 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your rent history, including evictions 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Your contact information 

(e.g. telephone, e-mail, address, driver license) 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If volunteered or requested, please describe 

______________________________________ 

Other 

[ ] I volunteered   

[ ] Agent requested 

[ ] Exchanged earlier 

[ ] Agent did not  

obtain 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 7: COMMENTS 

 ALL TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the following: 

 Minimum or maximum income requirements (monthly or 

annual)? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Whether you are qualified to rent the unit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open 

Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Race or ethnicity? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How you would come up with the money for the 

security deposit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Mandatory renter’s insurance? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

 VOUCHER TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the 

following: 

 Public housing / the Public Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

Vouchers in general/the HCV program/the Section 

8 program/ voucher holders? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

The inspection/approval of the housing by the 

Public Housing Authority? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

83 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

158

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

The dollar value of your voucher? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How much of the rent you would pay / the housing 

agency would pay? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

If your voucher includes utilities? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

How many bedrooms your voucher was for? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

When your voucher expires? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

 ALL TESTERS – GENERAL COMMENTS 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 8: MATERIALS RECEIVED 

 Did the agent provide you with any of the following items that you did not ask for? 

(select all that apply)  

Business Card 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Brochure 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Listings 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Floor Plan 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Rental / Lease Agreement 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Gift 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Food and/or beverage 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Other 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If other, specify: 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 9: ARRANGEMENTS FOR FUTURE CONTACT 

 Were arrangements for future contact made? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If arrangements for future contact were made, please specify: 

The agent said that she/he would contact you 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

The agent invited you to call her/him 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Other 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Other, specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 10: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete: 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Timestamp 

______________________________________ 

84 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

159

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (IN-PERSON SITE VISIT) 

 Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Tester type 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Available Unit Form Sequence 

[auto-fill] 

 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT 

 Address of Available Unit 

Number and Street 

______________________________________ 

Unit Number 

______________________________________ 

Floor 

______________________________________ 

City 

______________________________________ 

State 

______________________________________ 

Zip Code (00000) 

______________________________________ 

Number of bedrooms: 

[ ] 2 bedrooms  [ ] 2 bedrooms + den 

[ ] 3 bedrooms  [ ] 3 bedrooms + den 

[ ] Other 

If Other, please specify 

______________________________________ 

Number of bathrooms 

______________________________________ 

Date available (mm/dd/yyyy) 

___/___/______ 

Did you inspect a unit during your site visit? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, what type of unit did you inspect? 

[ ] Actual available unit  [ ] Model unit 

[ ] Other unit similar to the actual available unit 

Did the unit have any of the following INTERIOR physical conditions? 

Broken plaster or peeling paint 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Discoloration of a floor, wall or ceiling due to 

water leakage 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Exposed wiring 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Did the building’s EXTERIOR have any of the following physical conditions? 

Sagging roof 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Broken window 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Boarded up windows 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

85 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

160

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES 

 Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit. 

How much is the rent? ($___/month) 

______________________________________ 

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be 

applied toward your rent if you were approved? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount of the fee 

______________________________________ 

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? 

[ ] Yes – choice of security deposit or surety 

bond 

[ ] Yes – security deposit 

[ ] Yes – surety bond 

[ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount accordingly 

Security deposit amount 

______________________________________ 

Surety bond amount 

______________________________________ 

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be 

applied toward your security deposit / surety bond if 

you were approved? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the amount of the fee 

______________________________________ 

Is a non-refundable application fee required? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If yes, please report the application fee amount: 

______________________________________ 

Where you told about any additional mandatory fees? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Name of first mandatory fee 

[ ] Administrative/processing fee 

[ ] Agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee 

[ ] Amenity fee (access to gym, pool, etc.) 

[ ] Cleaning/pest control fee 

[ ] Credit/background check fee (separate from 

application fee) 

[ ] Fee to hold housing off the market/reservation 

fee 

[ ] HOA/condo fee 

[ ] Key/lock/access fee (for first set) 

[ ] Maintenance fee 

[ ] Move-in fee 

[ ] Other fee 

[ ] Parking/garage fee 

[ ] Township/vil age/borough fee 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

Is this a one-time/annual or monthly fee? 

[ ] One-time/annual 

[ ] Monthly 

What is the amount of this fee? 

______________________________________ 

 [The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth mandatory fees] 

86 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

161

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

Incentives: Please carefully record all incentives related to renting this available unit. 

Were you told about any incentives available to you if you decide to apply and rent the unit right away? 

(Do not include incentives available if you refer a friend or if you rent the apartment before your assigned move-in date. If the agent offered a free month’s rent amortized over the length of the lease, record this only as a free month’s rent.) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Name of first incentive 

[ ] Gift card/cash back 

[ ] Reduced/waived administrative/processing 

fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived 

agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived amenity fee (access to gym, 

pool, etc.) 

[ ] Reduced/waived application fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived cleaning/pest control fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived credit/background check fee 

(separate from application fee) 

[ ] Reduced/waived fee to hold 

housing/reservation fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived HOA/condo fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived key/lock/access fee (for first 

set) 

[ ] Reduced/waived maintenance fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived move-in fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived other fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived parking/garage fee 

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (free months) 

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (monthly reduction) 

[ ] Reduced/waived security deposit 

[ ] Reduced/waived township/vil age/borough fee 

If Other, please specify: 

______________________________________ 

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly incentive? 

[ ] One-time/annual 

[ ] Monthly 

Amount of incentive? 

______________________________________ 

 [The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth incentives] 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

87 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

162

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

SECTION 3: COMMENTS 

 Did the housing provider make any of the following 

comments about the building and/or surrounding 

neighborhood? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Noise 

[ ] Quiet [ ] Noisy 

[ ] No comment 

Safety 

[ ] Safe/low crime 

[ ] Dangerous/high crime 

[ ] No comment 

Schools 

[ ] Good 

[ ] Poor 

[ ] No comment 

Services / Maintenance / Amenities 

[ ] Good services / maintenance / amenities 

[ ] Poor services / maintenance / amenities 

[ ] No comment 

Did the housing provider make any comments about 

this particular unit/building? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

______________________________________ 

General comments 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Delete this record (TC use only) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Geocoding for Address 

[auto-fil  geocoding results] 

88 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

163

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

RENTAL NARRATIVE FORM 

 Class ID 

[auto-fill] 

Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Narrative: 

 This form is completed 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTAN

89 CE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

164

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

FOLLOW-UP CONTACT FORM 

 Site 

[auto-fill] 

Tester type 

[auto-fill] 

Tester ID 

[auto-fill] 

Control Number 

[auto-fill] 

Follow-up Form Sequence Number 

[auto-fill] 

 SECTION 1: DOCUMENTING FOLLOW-UP CONTACT 

 Was there any follow-up contact? 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Who initiated contact? 

[ ] Tester 

[ ] Housing provider 

Name of housing provider/agent (if given) 

______________________________________ 

Type of contact 

[ ] Telephone call / voicemail 

[ ] Postal mail 

[ ] E-mail 

[ ] Text Message 

Date and time of contact 

Date 

___/___/_____ 

Day of the week 

[ ] Mon  [ ] Tues [ ] Wed  [ ] Thurs 

[ ] Fri  [ ] Sat  [ ] Sun 

Time 

___:___ 

[ ] AM  [ ] PM 

 What was the stated purpose of the contact? (Check all that apply) 

 Personal message from housing provider thanking 

tester for calling or visiting and / or asking if tester 

has any additional questions. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Personal message from housing provider asking 

if tester is stil  interested in housing. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Personal message from housing provider wanting 

to let tester know about more available units. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Personal message from housing provider wanting 

to get more information from tester. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Automated message (call or e-mail) from housing 

provider thanking tester for calling or visiting and / or 

providing additional general information. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Automated message asking tester to take part in a 

marketing survey or something similar. 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Other 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

If Other, please specify 

______________________________________ 

 SECTION 2: FORM SUBMISSION 

 This form is complete 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

Delete this record (for TC use only) 

[ ] Yes  [ ] No 

90 

H O U SIN G  D ISC R IM IN A T I O N   A G A IN S T   H O U S IN G   C H O IC E  V O U C H ER   H O LD ER S  

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

165

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

166

References

References

and Building New Ties,”  Housing Policy 

Debate 15 (4): 415–447.

Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights 

Aron, Lauran, Claudia L. Aranda, Douglas 

under Law (CLCCRL). 2014.  Final Report: 

Wissoker, Brent Howel , Robert Santos, 

Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project 

Molly Scott, and Margery Austin Turner. 

for the Chicago Housing Authority. 

2016.  Discrimination Against Families 

Chicago: Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for 

With Children in Rental Housing Markets: 

Civil Rights under Law.

Findings of the Pilot Study. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Collinson, Robert, and Peter Ganong. 2016.  The 

Urban Development. https://www.

Incidence of Housing Voucher Generosity. 

huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 

HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ganong/

files/collinsonganong105.pdf.

Austin Tenants’ Council. 2012.  Voucher Holders 

Need Not Apply: An Audit Report on 

Cooper, Emily, and Sloane Cooper. 2016.  Section 

the Refusal of Housing Choice Vouchers 

8 Made Simple—Special Edition. Boston: 

by Landlords in the Austin MSA. Austin, 

Technical Assistance Collaborative. http://

TX: Austin Tenants’ Council. http://

www.tacinc.org/media/58886/S8MS Ful  

www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.

Book.pdf.

cfm?id=211114.

Cunningham, Mary K., and Audrey Droesch. 

Berdahl-Baldwin, Audrey. 2015.  Housing 

2005.  Neighborhood Quality and Racial 

Mobility Programs in the US. Washington, 

Segregation. Washington, DC: Urban 

DC: PRRAC. http://prrac.org/pdf/

Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/

HousingMobilityProgramsInTheUS2015.pdf.

default/files/publication/51941/411248-

Neighborhood-Quality-and-Racial-

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. “Moving Up 

Segregation.PDF.

Versus Moving Out: Neighborhood Effects 

in Housing Mobility Programs,”  Housing 

Cunningham, Mary K., Molly M. Scott, Chris 

Policy Debate 8 (1): 195–234.

Narducci, Sam Hal , and Alexandra 

Stanczyk. 2010.  Improving Neighborhood 

Briggs, Xavier de Souza, and Elizabeth S. 

Location Outcomes in the Housing Choice 

Jacobs. 2002. Qualitative Research on 

Voucher Program: A Scan of Mobility 

‘Moving to Opportunity’: Report on a 

Assistance Programs. Washington, 

Conference. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae 

DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.

Foundation.

org/research/publication/improving-

Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. 2015. 

neighborhood-location-outcomes-

The Impacts of Neighborhoods on 

housing-choice-voucher-program-scan-

Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood 

mobility-assistance-programs.

Exposure Effects and County-Level 

Cunningham, Mary K., David Sylvester, and 

Estimates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

Margery Austin Turner. 1999.  Section 

University; National Bureau of Economic 

8 Families in the Washington Region: 

Research.

Neighborhood Choices and Constraints. 

Clampet-Lundquist, Susan. 2004. “HOPE VI 

Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington 

Relocation: Moving to New Neighborhoods 

Council of Governments.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

167

References

Daniel, Tamica H. 2010. “Bringing Real Choice 

Center.  http://furmancenter.org/files/

to the Housing Choice Voucher Program: 

HousingChoiceVouchers_WorkingPaper_

Addressing Voucher Discrimination Under 

IngridGouldEl en_14AUG2017.pdf.

the Federal Fair Housing Act,”  Georgetown 

Law Journal 98: 769–794.  http://

El en, Ingrid Gould, Michael C. Lens, and 

georgetown.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/

Katherine O’Regan. 2012. “American 

pdf/98-3/Daniel.PDF.

Murder Mystery Revisited: Do Housing 

Voucher Households Cause Crime?” 

Dawkins, Casey, and Jae Sik Jeon. 2018. 

Housing Policy Debate 22 (4): 551–572.

“Housing Cost Burden in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program: The Impact of 

El en, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Turner. 

HUD Program Rules,”  Cityscape 20 (1): 

1997. “Does Neighborhood Matter? 

39–62. 

Assessing Recent Evidence,”  Housing 

Policy Debate 8 (4): 833–866.

DeLuca, Stephanie, Philip M. E. Garboden, and 

Peter Rosenblatt. 2013. “Segregating 

Equal Rights Center. 2005.  In Search of Decent 

Shelter: How Housing Policies Shape 

Housing in the DC Metropolitan Area: The 

the Residential Locations of Low-Income 

Affordable Housing Crisis for Section 8 

Minority Families,”  Annals of the American 

Voucher Holders. Washington, DC: Equal 

Academy of Political and Social Science 

Rights Center. 

647 (1): 268–299.

. 2008.  A Step Away From Homelessness: 

Desmond, Matthew. 2016.  Evicted: Poverty and 

Housing Choice Voucher Holders Denied 

Profit in the American City. New York: 

Housing in Montgomery County, MD. 

Penguin Random House.

Washington, DC: Equal Rights Center.

Desmond, Matthew, and Kristin L. Perkins. 2016. 

. 2011.  Still in Search of Decent Housing: 

“Are Landlords Overcharging Housing 

A Five-Year Reflection on Discrimination 

Voucher Holders?”  City and Community 15 

Against Housing Choice Voucher Holders 

(2): 137–162. https://scholar.harvard.edu/

in the District of Columbia. Washington, 

mdesmond/publications/are-landlords-

DC: Equal Rights Center. https://www.

overcharging-housing-voucher-holders.

scribd.com/document/54123374/Stil -in-

Search-of-Decent-Housing.

Devine, Deborah J., Robert W. Gray, Lester 

Rubin, and Lydia B. Taghavi. 2003. 

. 2013.  Will You Take My Voucher? An 

Housing Choice Voucher Location 

Update on Housing Choice Voucher 

Patterns: Implications for Participant 

Discrimination in the District of Columbia. 

and Neighborhood Welfare. Washington, 

Washington, DC: Equal Rights Center. 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

uploads/wil _you_take_my_voucher.pdf.

Development and Research. http://www.

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana. 2013. 

huduser.org/publications/pdf/location_

Fair Housing Rental Testing Audit Report. 

paper.pdf.

Indianapolis, IN: Fair Housing Center of 

El en, Ingrid Gould. 2017. What Do We 

Central Indiana. https://www.fhcci.org/wp-

Know About Housing Choice 

content/uploads/2011/12/4-12-13-FHCCI-

Vouchers? Working paper. New 

Testing-Audit-Report.pdf.

York: New York University, Furman 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

168

References

Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. 2001. 

DC: Poverty and Race Research 

We Don’t Want Your Kind Living Here: A 

Action Council. http://prrac.org/pdf/

Report on Discrimination in the Greater 

GettingPastNo.pdf.

Boston Rental Market. Boston: Fair 

Housing Center of Greater Boston. 

. 2011. “Defining ‘Choice’ in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program.” Ph.D. Diss. 

Feins, Judith D., and Rhiannon Patterson. 2005. 

New York: New York University. 

“Geographic Mobility in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program: A Study of 

. 2017.  Assisted Housing Mobility Initiatives. 

Families Entering the Program, 1995–

Washington, DC: U.S. Partnership on 

2002,”  Cityscape 8 (2): 21–48.

Mobility From Poverty. http://www.

mobilitypartnership.org/publications/

Finkel, Meryl, and Larry Buron. 2001.  Study on 

assisted-housing-mobility-initiatives.

Section 8 Voucher Success Rates. Volume 

I, Quantitative Study of Success Rates in 

Galvez, Martha, Cal ie Black, Barbara Felver, 

Metropolitan Areas. Cambridge, MA: Abt 

and Sharon Estee. 2014.  Characteristics 

Associates.

of Housing Assistance Recipients 

From Three Public Housing Authorities. 

Finkel, Meryl, Samuel Dastrup, Kimberly Burnett, 

Olympia: Washington State Department 

Thyria Alvarez, Carissa Climaco, and Tanya 

of Social and Health Services, Research 

de Sousa. 2017.  Small Area Fair Market Rent 

and Data Analysis Division. https://www.

Demonstration Evaluation: Interim Report. 

dshs.wa.gov/sesa/rda/research-reports/

Washington, DC: Abt Associates. https://

characteristics-housing-assistance-

www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/

recipients-three-public-housing-authorities.

pdf/SAFMR-Interim-Report.pdf.

Galvez, Martha, Maya Brennan, Brady Meixel , 

Freeman, Lance. 2012. “The Impact of Source 

and Rolf Pendal . 2017.  Housing as a 

of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization,” 

Safety Net. Washington, DC: Urban 

Housing Policy Debate 22 (2): 207–319.

Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/

publication/housing-safety-net.

Freeman, Lance, and Yunjing Li. 2014. “Do 

Source of Income Anti-Discrimination 

Galvez, Martha, Sharon Estee, Irina Sharkova, 

Laws Facilitate Access to Less 

Quinghua Liu, Barbara Felver, and 

Disadvantaged Neighborhoods?”  Housing 

Jim Mayfield. 2014.  Housing Matters: 

Studies 29 (1): 88–107.

Characteristics and Experiences of TANF 

Clients by Housing Status. Olympia: 

Freiberg, Fred, and Diane L. Houk. 2008. 

Washington State Department of Social 

No License to Discriminate: Real 

and Health Services, Research and Data 

Estate Advertising, Source of Income 

Analysis Division. https://www.dshs.

Discrimination, and Homelessness in New 

wa.gov/sites/default/files/SESA/rda/

York City. New York: Fair Housing Justice 

documents/research-11-211.pdf. 

Center.  http://www.fairhousingjustice.org/

wp-content/uploads/2012/11/License_to_

Galvez, Martha, Jasmine Simington, and Mark 

Discriminate_finalDRAFT.pdf.

Treskon. 2017.  Moving to Work and 

Neighborhood Opportunity. Washington, 

Galvez, Martha M. 2010. Getting Past ‘No’: 

DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.

Housing Choice Voucher Holders’ 

org/research/publication/moving-work-

Experiences With Discrimination and 

and-neighborhood-opportunity. 

Search Costs. Draft. Washington, 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

169

References

Garboden, Philip M. E., Eva Rosen, Stefanie 

Metropolitan Area,”  Urban Affairs Review 

DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. Forthcoming. 

32 (3): 403–419.

“Taking Stock: What Drives Landlord 

Participation in the Housing Choice 

Healy, Lenore, and Michael Lepley. 2016. 

Voucher Program?”

Housing Voucher Mobility in Cuyahoga 

County. Cleveland: The Housing Center: 

Getsinger, Liza, Lily Posey, Graham MacDonald, 

Housing Research and Advocacy Center. 

Josh Leopold, and Katya Abazajian. 

http://www.thehousingcenter.org/wp-

2017.  The Housing Affordability Gap for 

content/uploads/2016/02/Cuyahoga-

Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2014. 

County-Voucher-Mobility-Report.pdf.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

www.urban.org/research/publication/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

housing-affordability-gap-extremely-low-

Development (HUD). 2009.  Housing 

income-renters-2014. 

Choice Voucher Program Guidebook 

(7420.10g). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center 

Department of Housing and Urban 

(GNOFHAC). 2009.  Housing Choice in 

Development. 

Crisis: An Audit Report on Discrimination 

against Housing Choice Voucher 

. 2016. “Picture of Subsidized 

Holders in the Greater New Orleans 

Households.” Database. http://www.

Rental Housing Market. New Orleans: 

huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action 

yearlydata.html.

Center.  http://www.gnofairhousing.

. 2018. “Fair Market Rents.” https://www.

org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/

huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html

HousingChoiceInCrisis2009.pdf.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard 

Gubits, Daniel, Jill Khadduri, and Jennifer 

University (JCHS). 2017.  The State of 

Turnham. 2009.  Housing Patterns of 

the Nation’s Housing 2015. Cambridge, 

Low-Income Families With Children: 

MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies 

Further Analysis of Data From the Study 

of Harvard University. http://www.jchs.

of the Effects of Housing Vouchers on 

harvard.edu/sites/default/files/jchs-sonhr-

Welfare Families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

2015-ful .pdf.

University.

Jencks, Christopher, and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. 

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michel e Wood, 

“The Social Consequences of Growing 

Stephen Bell, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia D. 

Up in a Poor Neighborhood.” In  Inner-

Solari, Scott R. Brown, Debi Mclnnis, Tom 

City Poverty in the United States, edited 

McCal , Utsav Kattel, Abt Associates, Inc., 

by Laurence E. Lynn and Michael G. 

and Vanderbilt University. 2016.  Family 

H. McGeary. Washington, DC: National 

Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing 

Academies Press: 111–186.

and Services Interventions for Homeless 

Families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

Kennedy, Stephen D., and Meryl Finkel. 1994. 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Section 8 Rental Voucher and Rental 

Certificate Utilization Study: Final Report. 

Hartung, John M., and Jeffrey Henig. 1997. 

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

“Housing Vouchers and Certificates as 

a Vehicle for Deconcentrating the Poor: 

Khadduri, Jil . 2008.  Housing Vouchers Are 

Evidence From the Washington, DC, 

Critical for Ending Family Homelessness. 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

170

References

Washington, DC: National Al iance to End 

Sarale Sewel , and Rob Santos. 2017.  A 

Homelessness. 

Paired-Testing Pilot Study of Housing 

Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples 

Kingsley, G. Thomas. 2017.  Trends in Housing 

and Transgender Individuals. Washington, 

Problems and Federal Housing Assistance. 

DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

org/research/publication/paired-testing-

www.urban.org/research/publication/

pilot-study-housing-discrimination-against-

trends-housing-problems-and-federal-

same-sex-couples-and-transgender-

housing-assistance. 

individuals. 

Krysan, Maria, Kyle Crowder, Molly M. Scott, and 

Maney, Brian, and Sheila Crowley. 2000. 

Carl Hedman, with Sade Adeeyo, Somala 

“Scarcity and Success: Perspectives on 

Diby, and Sierra Latham. Forthcoming. 

Assisted Housing,”  Journal of Affordable 

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Housing 

Housing & Community Development Law 9 

Search. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

(4): 319–368. 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Mast, Brent D., and David Hardiman. 2017. 

Landlord Liaison Project. 2010.  2010 

“Project-Based Vouchers,”  Cityscape 19 

Performance and Evaluation Report. 

(2): 301–322.

Seattle: King County Housing Authority. 

http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/

Mayfield, Jim, Cal ie Black, Barbara Felver, 

socialServices/housing/documents/

Sharon Estee, Elizabeth Speaker, and 

HFP_HHP/HHP/Landlord_Liaison_Project_

Deleena Patton. 2015.  Characteristics of 

Final_2010.ashx.

Public Housing Assistance Recipients 

in Washington State: A Profile of DSHS 

Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, Inc. 

Clients Served by Public Housing 

(LCBH). 2002.  Locked Out: Barriers to 

Authorities in 2013. Olympia: Washington 

Choice for Housing Voucher Holders. 

State Department of Social and Health 

Chicago: Lawyers Committee for Better 

Services, Research and Data Analysis 

Housing, Inc. http://lcbh.org/sites/default/

Division. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/

files/resources/2002-lcbh-housing-

default/files/SESA/rda/documents/

voucher-barriers-report.pdf.

research-11-223.pdf.

Levy, Diane K., Margery Austin Turner, Rob 

McClure, Kirk. 2005. “Rent Burden in the 

Santos, Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Housing Choice Voucher Program,” 

Aranda, Rob Pitingolo, and Helen Ho. 

Cityscape 8 (2): 5–20. https://www.jstor.

2015.  Discrimination in the Rental Housing 

org/stable/20868590?seq=1 - page_scan_

Market Against People Who Are Deaf 

tab_contents.

and People Who Use Wheelchairs: 

National Study Findings. Washington, 

. 2011.  Housing Choice Voucher Marketing 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Opportunity Index: Analysis of Data 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

at the Tract and Block Group Level. 

Development and Research. https://www.

Assisted Housing Research Cadre Report. 

huduser.gov/portal/publications/fairhsg/

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

hds_disability.html.

Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Policy Development and Research.

Levy, Diane K., Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Aranda, Brett Howel , Rob Pitingolo, 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

171

References

Metzger, Molly W. 2014. “The Reconcentration of 

Pashup, Jennifer, Kathryn Edin, Greg J. Duncan, 

Poverty: Patterns of Housing Voucher Use, 

and Karen Burke. 2005. “Participation 

2000 to 2008,”  Housing Policy Debate 24 

in a Residential Mobility Program From 

(3): 544–567. http://www.tandfonline.com/

the Client’s Perspective: Findings From 

doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2013.876437.

Gautreaux Two,”  Housing Policy Debate 16 

(3–4): 361–392.

Montgomery County Office of Human Rights. 

2009.  Office of Human Rights FY 2009 

Pendal , Rolf. 2000. “Why Voucher and Certificate 

Fair Housing Testing. Rockvil e, MD: 

Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods,” 

Montgomery County Office of Human 

Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 881–909. 

Rights, Fair Housing Program. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10

80/10511482.2000.9521391.

New York City ACORN. 2007.  Housing for 

Everyone: New York City, Section 8, and 

Pendal , Rolf, Casey Dawkins, Evelyn 

Source of Income Discrimination. New 

Blumenberg, Christopher Hayes, Arthur 

York: New York City ACORN. 

(Taz) George, Zach McDade, Jae 

Sik Jeon, Eli Knaap, Gregory Pierce, 

New York University Furman Center. 2018.  How 

and Michael Smart. 2014.  Driving to 

Do Small Area Fair Market Rents Affect the 

Opportunity: Understanding the Links 

Location and Number of Units Affordable 

Among Transportation Access, Residential 

to Voucher Holders?  New York: New 

Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity 

York University, Furman Center. http://

for Housing Voucher Recipients. 

furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

SAFMRbrief_5JAN2018_1.pdf.

www.urban.org/research/publication/

Newton Fair Housing Task Force. 2008.  City 

driving-opportunity-understanding-

of Newton Fair Housing Action Plan, 

links-among-transportation-access-

Appendix A: Housing Discrimination Audit 

residential-outcomes-and-economic-

Report to the City of Newton (Fair Housing 

opportunity-housing-voucher-recipients/

Center of Greater Boston, April 2006). 

view/ful _report.

Newton, MA: Official City Website.  http://

Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 

www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/

1999.  CHAC Section 8 Program: Barriers 

documents/46406.

to Successful Leasing Up. Washington, 

O’Regan, Katherine M., and Keren M. Horn. 

DC: Urban Institute. 

2012.  What Can We Learn About the Low-

. 2000.  Searching for Section 8 Housing in 

Income Housing Tax Credit Program by 

Chicago. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Looking at the Tenants?  Washington, DC: 

National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

Poverty and Race Research Action Council 

http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/

(PRRAC). 2017.  Expanding Choice: 

LIHTC_paper_July_2012_1.pdf.

Practical Strategies for Building a 

Successful Housing Mobility Program, 

Orlebeke, Charles J. 2000. “The Evolution of Low 

Appendix B: State, Local, and Federal 

Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999,” 

Laws Barring Source-of-Income 

Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): 489–520. 

Discrimination. Washington, DC: Poverty 

https://oied.ncsu.edu/selc/wp-content/

and Race Research Action Council. http://

uploads/2013/03/Orlebeke-HPD-2000-

www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf.

Evolution-of-LI-Housing-Policy.pdf.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

172

References

Public and Affordable Housing Research 

Shroder, Mark. 2002. “Locational Constraint, 

Corporation. 2016.  Housing Agency 

Housing Counseling, and Successful 

Waiting Lists and the Demand for Housing 

Lease-Up in a Randomized Housing 

Assistance. Cheshire, CT: Public and 

Voucher Experiment,”  Journal of Urban 

Affordable Housing Research Corporation. 

Economics 51 (2): 315–338.

https://www.housingcenter.com/wp-

content/uploads/2017/11/waiting-list-

Smith, Robin E., Arthur Naparstek, Susan Popkin, 

spotlight-executive-summary.pdf. 

Lesley Bartlett, Lisa Bates, Jessica Cigna, 

Russell Crane, and Elizabeth Vinson. 2002. 

Rosen, Eva. 2014. “Rigging the Rules of the 

Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees. 

Game: How Landlords Geographical y Sort 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.

Low Income Renters,”  City & Community 

urban.org/research/publication/housing-

13 (4): 310–340. http://www.prrac.org/pdf/

choice-hope-vi-relocatees/view/ful _report.

Rosen_Landlords_2014.pdf.

Tegeler, Philip, Megan Haberle, and Ebony 

Rosenblatt, Peter, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2012. 

Gayles. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair 

“‘We Don’t Live Outside, We Live in Here’: 

Housing in HUD Housing Programs: A First 

Neighborhood and Residential Mobility 

Term Report Card,”  Journal of Affordable 

Decisions among Low-Income Families,” 

Housing and Community Development 

City & Community 11 (3): 254–284. 

Law 22: 27–60.

Rosin, Hanna. 2008. “American Murder Mystery,” 

Thabault, Isabel e M., and Eliza T. Platts-Mills. 

Atlantic Monthly July/August: 40–54. 

2006.  Discrimination Against Participants 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: 

archive/2008/07/american-murder-

An Enforcement Strategy. Washington, 

mystery/306872

DC: Poverty and Race Research Action 

Council. 

Sampson, Robert J. 2012.  Great American City: 

Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood 

Turner, Margery Austin, Austin Nichols, and 

Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jennifer Comey. 2012.  Benefits of Living 

in High-Opportunity Neighborhoods: 

Sard, Barbara, and Douglas Rice. 2014. 

Insights From the Moving to Opportunity 

Creating Opportunity for Children: How 

Demonstration. Washington, DC: 

Housing Location Can Make a Difference. 

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

Washington, DC: Center on Budget and 

research/publication/benefits-living-high-

Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.

opportunity-neighborhoods.

org/research/creating-opportunity-for-

children.

Turner, Margery Austin, Susan J. Popkin, and 

Mary K. Cunningham. 1999.  Section 

Seattle Office of Civil Rights. 2015. “FAQ on 2015 

8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health: 

Testing. ” http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/

Emerging Issues and Policy Challenges. 

civil-rights/fair-housing/testing/faq.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Schwartz, Alex, Kirk McClure, and Lydia Taghavi. 

2016. “Vouchers and Neighborhood 

Distress: The Unrealized Potential for 

Families with Housing Choice Vouchers to 

Reside in Neighborhoods with Low Levels 

of Distress,”  Cityscape 18 (3): 207–227.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

173

References

Turner, Margery Austin, Rob Santos, Diane 

K. Levy, Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Aranda, and Rob Pitingolo. 2013. 

Housing Discrimination Against Racial 

and Ethnic Minorities 2012. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. https://www.

huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-

514_HDS2012.pdf.

Varady, David P., and Carol C. Walker. 2000. 

Case Study for Section 8 Rental Vouchers 

and Rental Certificates in Alameda County, 

California: Final Report. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban 

Policy Research.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987.  The Truly 

Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the 

Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.

Zielenbach, Sean. 2006. “Moving Beyond the 

Rhetoric: Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher Program and Lower Income 

Neighborhoods,”  Journal of Affordable 

Housing and Community Development 

Law 16 (1): 9–39.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

174

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

September 2018

Document Outline

Acknowledgments 

Foreword

Contents 

Tables, Figures, and Boxes 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology

Chapter 4:  How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units?

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Chapter 6:  Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

Appendix A: Technical Appendix 

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angele

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angele

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

References 

HUD2-266 p55 (sm)1.0_508.pdf

Acknowledgments 

Foreword

Contents 

Tables, Figures, and Boxes 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology

Chapter 4:  How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units?

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Chapter 6:  Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

Appendix A: Technical Appendix 

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angele

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angele

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

References 