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

Table of Contents

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