Evidence Matters Transforming Knowledge

Into Housing and Community

Development Policy

FALL 2010

2014

Samantha Tan’s entry “Fair Housing for All, Big and Small!” won the Fair Housing Council of Oregon’s 2014 fair housing Fair Housing Council of Oregon

poster contest.

In This Issue

Expanding Opportunity Through

Fair Housing Choice

1Expanding Opportunity Through

Fair Housing Choice

More than four decades after refusal to sell or rent housing, have

Congress passed the Fair Hous-

become less common, more subtle

ing Act, fair housing issues remain

forms, such as steering homeseekers

Paired Testing and the Housing

critical to the pursuit of strong, sustain-

to certain neighborhoods, remain

12Discrimination Studies

able, inclusive communities and equal

widespread. Racial segregation in

opportunity for all. There is evidence of

housing has not only endured but,

progress. By some measures, incidences

along with increasing income segregation,

Fair Housing Enforcement

of housing discrimination by race have

has also created areas of concentrated

declined since 1977, when the first

poverty populated predominantly by

16Organizations Use Testing To national fair housing audit study was minority residents. Research shows that Expose Discrimination

conducted. However, even as overt forms

such residential segregation carries

of discrimination, such as the outright

high costs for individuals, families, and

CONTINUED ON PAGE 3

Message from the

Assistant Secretary

As HUD’s new Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research (PD&R), I find it particularly fitting that my debut message appears in this, the 11th edition of Evidence Matters, which examines fair housing issues and racial segregation. These issues, the focus of much of my own research, are essential to HUD’s core mission.

PD&R has a long history of research into housing discrimination and fair housing issues. As our Research Spotlight article discusses, the national Housing Discrimination Studies that PD&R funds, along with associated evaluations that investigate more specific types of discrimination, are among the largest and most important assessments of discrimination in U.S. housing markets available.

Those studies find that, although the incidence of more overt forms of housing discrimination has declined over the years, more subtle types of discrimination persist. Such tactics raise the cost of the housing search process for minorities and may help preserve patterns of segregation that limit opportunity.

Research shows that one critical strategy for reducing housing discrimination is education. Although PD&R research showed encouraging increases in public support for fair housing laws from 2001 to 2005, it also revealed that the public still lacks knowledge about what discriminatory behaviors are prohibited by federal law. Because subtle forms of discrimination are harder to detect, they may pose a challenge both in raising public awareness of their existence and in enforcement. Subtle forms of discrimination may go undetected by those who are affected, preventing victims from seeking a remedy through the established complaint process.

Fair housing, however, is about much more than eliminating current acts of discrimination. Legacies of discrimination, public policies old and new, socioeconomic differences among racial and ethnic groups, along with existing or perceived prejudices — all of these factors may contribute to existing patterns of residential segregation. As a society, and particularly here at HUD, we should be concerned about segregation regardless of its cause because where we live has a profound effect on the life chances of children and households. Considerable evidence shows that even after controlling for income and education, large disparities exist in the quality of neighborhoods between white and minority households; the places and resources that households with otherwise similar means can access differ substantially by race.

In our previous research, Jorge De la Roca, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and I found that racial disparities in neighborhood poverty levels, quality of nearby schools, and exposure to violent crime are higher in more segregated areas. Although minorities might generally live in neighborhoods with fewer opportunities than do whites, that gap is much larger in more segregated metropolitan areas. Decreasing segregation, whatever its cause, may lower racial disparities in those key neighborhood attributes — racial disparities that may perpetuate differences in income and wealth, which in turn reinforce residential segregation.

A key goal of fair housing efforts is to decrease segregation and create meaningful choice for all. As we work toward this goal, we also need to continue another fight: to break the strong correlation between neighborhood quality and the pres-ence of minorities. We need strategic investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods to ensure that those who reside there (by choice or through constrained options) also have opportunities. Achieving the charge of fair housing and opportunity for all requires doing both.

— Katherine M. O’Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

2

Editor’s Note

Fair housing, the focus of this edition of Evidence Matters, is a critical component of HUD’s mission and is deeply connected to many of the housing and community development topics we have covered previously, from community resilience to low-income homeownership. Ensuring that all Americans have equitable access to healthy, opportunity-rich neighborhoods that fit their needs and preferences must be a fundamental goal at all levels of our government.

This issue examines fair housing and housing discrimination, particularly from an enforcement perspective. The lead article, “Expanding Opportunity Through Fair Housing Choice,” discusses the progress that has been made in reducing overt discrimination while recognizing the consequences of more persistent and subtle forms of discrimination as well as continuing segregation. “Paired Testing and the Housing Discrimination Studies,” our Research Spotlight article, focuses on the methodology of HUD’s Housing Discrimination Studies, which have for decades provided critical insight into the state of fair housing in the United States. Finally, our In Practice article, “Fair Housing Enforcement Organizations Use Testing To Expose Discrimination,” profiles three nonprofits working to prevent and expose discrimination and advocate for equal housing opportunities.

I hope you find this issue of Evidence Matters enlightening. Our next issue will explore the connections between housing and youth outcomes. Please continue the conversation and provide feedback at www.huduser.org/forums.

— Rachelle Levitt, Director of Research Utilization Division discrimination includes both differential

Highlights

treatment regarding availability or terms

and conditions in the advertisement,

n The persistence of subtle forms of discrimination limits housing opportunities sale or rental, financing, or insurance

for minority homeseekers and contributes to patterns of residential segregation.

of housing, and disparate impact of ap-

n Fair housing enforcement efforts — often performed by local, nonprofit fair

parently neutral practices or policies in

housing organizations that are backed with federal funding — help expose and

restricting housing choice and opportunity

punish discriminatory behavior; however, they are limited because they rely

according to any basis prohibited by law.

primarily on victims of discrimination to initiate complaints.

Policies such as mortgage pricing practices

that are unrelated to creditworthiness

n Segregation rates in the United States remain high, restricting minority

or local residency preferences for hous-

households’ access to neighborhoods rich in amenities and opportunities;

ing choice vouchers — even when not

this restriction ultimately affects health, education, and other life outcomes.

intentionally discriminatory — may in

practice deny equal housing opportunity

or perpetuate segregation without

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Housing Discrimination:

justification and thus be prohibited by

Persistence, but Progress

the Fair Housing Act.2 Despite these

society as a whole, constricting oppor-

With a few exceptions, federal fair

legal prohibitions and an elaborate

tunity and life chances and limiting

housing law prohibits discrimination

federal, state, and local enforcement

economic growth. To date, fair housing

on the basis of race, color, religion,

system, evidence suggests that discrim-

policy has not been as effective as poli-

national origin, sex, disability, and fa-

ination remains a pervasive problem in

cymakers intended in combating these

milial status in all stages of seeking and

the nation’s housing markets.3

problems. Renewed efforts at both local

securing housing.1 Some state and local

and federal levels, however, take a more jurisdictions have adopted additional

The National Fair Housing Alliance,

proactive approach to promoting fair

provisions to prohibit housing discrimina-

a national consortium of private and

housing choice with the ultimate goal

tion on the basis of sexual orientation,

nonprofit fair housing organizations,

of reducing economic inequality by

gender identity, source of income, or

estimates that 3.7 million instances of

ensuring equal opportunity.

marital status, among others. Housing

discrimination occur each year on the

3

Photo, Item 63893, Courtesy of Seattle Municipal Archives

Explicit housing discrimination, such as that protested at this Congress of Racial Equality-sponsored demonstration in Seattle in 1964, has declined dramatically, but subtle forms persist.

basis of race alone.4 This persistent dis-

mortgage credit availability and terms

learned about fewer available apartments,

crimination is different in nature from

find evidence of discrimination against

and three of ten were denied the oppor-

the “door-slamming” discrimination —

racial minorities compared with simi-

tunity to inspect available units. Almost

overt and explicit refusal to rent, sell,

larly qualified white borrowers.9 Notably,

one out of six housing providers refused

or even show housing to a racial minor-

lending discrimination based on race was to allow a reasonable modification such ity — that was standard practice before

pervasive during the subprime lending

as widening a doorway or installing a

the passage of the Fair Housing Act in

boom; research shows that minorities

ramp, and almost one in five providers

1968.5 Today, minority homeseekers

paid higher interest rates and prices

with onsite parking refused to provide and

are more likely to encounter “discrimi-

on subprime loans — a difference that

designate a wheelchair-accessible parking

nation with a smile” — more subtle

could not be explained by income or

spot (see “Fair Housing Enforcement

mistreatment such as falsely being told

credit risk.10

Organizations Use Testing To Expose

that no units are available.6 HUD’s

Discrimination,” p. 16).12

2012 Housing Discrimination Study,

Less research has been conducted to

for example, found that while well-

measure the incidence of discrimina-

Discrimination on the basis of national

qualified minority homeseekers were as

tion against persons with disabilities

origin, which in some cases may overlap

likely as equally qualified white home-

nationally; however, the number of

with racial and ethnic discrimination,

seekers to get an appointment to see a

disability-based complaints received by

was cited in 13 percent of complaints re-

rental apartment or home, they were

HUD and local government enforce-

ceived by HUD and local governments

less likely than their white counterparts

ment agencies has neared 50 percent

in fiscal year (FY) 2011. A recent study

to be told about available units or shown

of the total in recent years, indicating

of national origin discrimination in

as many units. (See “Paired Testing and

that it is a significant problem.11 A

Birmingham, Atlanta, and San Antonio

the Housing Discrimination Studies,”

paired-testing study of the Chicago

found that, compared with their white

p. 12.) As a result, minority homeseek-

rental market in 2005 found that one of

counterparts, Hispanic homeseekers

ers incur greater search-related costs

four deaf apartment seekers using a text

experienced at least one type of adverse

and have more limited housing choices.7

telephone (TTY) relay service had their

treatment in search-related housing

A similar shift has occurred in the lend-

calls refused and that TTY callers generally

interactions 42 percent of the time.13

ing arena, as discrimination has largely

received less information and follow-up

Of the remaining bases of discrimination

changed from credit denial (though

than did non-TTY callers. The study

protected by the Fair Housing Act, sex

this still exists) into access to credit

found that one out of every four

was cited in 11 percent, familial status

on unequal terms.8 Studies of both

apartment seekers in a wheelchair

in 15 percent, religion in 3 percent,

4

and color in 2 percent of complaints

effect on racial minorities or other

Currently, fair housing enforcement is

received by HUD and local government

protected classes.18 Massey and Rothwell

largely complaint driven. Those who

enforcement agencies in FY 2011.14

conclude that zoning that restricts

believe that they have been or are about

density, for example, limits the ability

to be victims of housing discrimination

Recent research documents ongoing

of low- and moderate-income minorities

can file a discrimination complaint with

market discrimination against other

to leave segregated areas.19 Significantly,

HUD or with a state or local government

groups not protected under the federal

both HUD and the federal courts have

agency that participates in HUD’s Fair

Fair Housing Act. A study of discrimina-

interpreted the Fair Housing Act “to

Housing Assistance Program (FHAP).

tion against same-sex couples in rentals

prohibit practices with an unjustified

Under FHAP, HUD funds the investiga-

advertised on the internet found that

discriminatory effect, regardless of

tive, training, and education efforts of

same-sex couples received fewer email

whether there was an intent to discrimi-

participating agencies in jurisdictions

responses than heterosexual couples

nate.”20 Both private and public entities

that have fair housing laws that are

after contacting a housing provider. To

may engage in practices that have

substantially equivalent to or more

combat these and similar practices, 21

discriminatory effects, ranging from

stringent than those of the federal

states and the District of Columbia had

differential maintenance of foreclosed

Fair Housing Act. Some complainants

prohibited housing discrimination on

homes, subprime lending, and targeted

will first file a complaint with a local

the basis of sexual orientation or gen-

marketing to unfair land use policies

nonprofit fair housing organization.

der identity as of early 2012, and HUD

and the siting of public housing devel-

Many of these organizations participate

programs and HUD-assisted or -insured

opments in segregated areas.21

in HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives

housing providers cannot discriminate

Program (FHIP), which supports local

on the basis of sexual orientation,

Fair Housing Enforcement

organizations’ education and enforce-

gender identity, or marital status.15

Although legal prohibitions and public

ment efforts.23 HUD has begun to make

education campaigns can reduce discrim-

more frequent use of its authority to

Discrimination based on source of in-

ination by positively shaping attitudes and seek systemic relief through Secretary-come also restricts fair housing choice

behavior, effective enforcement remains

initiated complaints, which are based on

but is not prohibited by federal law.

crucial for achieving fair housing aims.

investigations in which no complainant

Some state and local jurisdictions have

The Fair Housing Act delegated primary

has come forward and cases in which

adopted protections on this basis, making

enforcement responsibility to HUD, al-

more people have been impacted by

it illegal, for example, for a landlord

though it also outlined a specific role for

a discriminatory practice than just the

to refuse to rent to tenants who pay

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

filing complainant.24

with housing vouchers or to disregard

and directed “all executive departments

Social Security disability benefits as a

and agencies” to further the purpos-

In recent years, policymakers have

qualifying source of income. By pre-

es of the act through their programs

placed increased emphasis on FHIP

venting voucher holders from moving

and activities.22

enforcement. Overall FHIP funding

to opportunity-rich neighborhoods, this

type of discrimination both restricts

housing choice for voucher holders and

prevents the Housing Choice Voucher

program from fulfilling its goal of de-

concentrating poverty.16 Because some

protected classes, such as racial minori-

ties, are disproportionately represented

among voucher holders, refusing to

accept vouchers may also have a dispa-

rate impact on groups protected by

the federal Fair Housing Act.17

The differential treatment type of

housing discrimination generally

occurs during the face-to-face interactions

associated with seeking and securing

housing. Numerous ostensibly non-

discriminatory practices and policies

Mark Lozier, Fair Share Housing Development

such as occupancy limits can also have

Founded in 1986 to implement the settlement agreement resulting from the Mount Laurel I and Mount Laurel II litigation against exclusionary zoning in New Jersey, Fair Share Housing Development provides a disparate impact or discriminatory

affordable housing with access to high-quality schools to families like the Chamberlains, pictured here.

5

increased dramatically in FY 2010, up

discrimination against black renters

of segregation, including continuing

to $42.5 million from $27.5 million in

and homebuyers.30 In addition, Turner

market discrimination, legacies of past

FY 2009, and since FY 2008, a greater

et al. conclude that long-term trends in

discrimination and segregation, racial

share of FHIP funds has gone toward

housing discrimination suggest that fair

differences in wealth and income,

enforcement than toward education

housing education and enforcement

household preferences, and public

or capacity building.25 This increase

efforts have been effective.31 Overall,

policy.37 Considerable scholarly debate

notwithstanding, Silverman and Patter-

public opinion surveys indicate a shift

continues over the relative importance

son argue that fair housing policy has

over time toward greater acceptance of

of each of these explanations.

suffered from “chronic underfunding”

residential diversity and federal prohibi-

and “inconsistent implementation.”26

tions against housing discrimination,

Causes. Continuing discrimination in

An enforcement system that relies so

both signs of progress and potential.32

housing markets limits housing choices

heavily on the initiation of complain-

for minorities and thereby reinforces

ants is significantly limited. As housing

Continuing Segregation:

segregation.38 Even if housing markets

discrimination has become more

Causes and Costs

were completely free of discrimination,

subtle, many victims may not even

If the long-term decline in the incidence

the legacy of discrimination and the

realize that they have been treated

of housing discrimination indicates

segregation it fostered is somewhat self-

unfairly. A 2005 HUD survey found that

that our nation’s implementation of

perpetuating. Because racial minorities

even among those who did perceive

fair housing policy has achieved some

historically have had unequal access

that they had been discriminated

level of success, the dogged persistence

to education and employment oppor-

against, only four percent sought help

of residential segregation reveals the

tunities and have benefited less from

from or filed a complaint with a fair

substantial work yet to be done. As

the wealth accumulation of suburban

housing organization, government

measured by the dissimilarity index — a

homeownership, they are less likely

agency, or private attorney. Survey

common measure of segregation based

even today to have the financial resources

respondents cited several reasons for

on the relative percentage of group

to choose residential options in less seg-

not taking action, including the belief

members that would have to move

regated, lower-poverty neighborhoods.39

that filing a complaint was not worth

to be evenly distributed throughout

the effort, would not help, or would be

a particular area — in 2010, segrega-

Reviews of literature on segregation by

too costly or time consuming; a lack of

tion of blacks from persons of other

both Dawkins and Charles conclude

knowledge about where or how to com-

races was lower in 657 of 658 housing

that racial differences in socioeconomic

plain; and a fear of retaliation.27 The

markets compared with 1970 and in

status explain only a small portion

average FHAP settlement between 2005

522 of 658 markets compared with

of existing patterns of segregation.40

and 2008 was $1,599 — an amount that

2000.33 Black-white segregation rates,

Higher incomes somewhat increase

may be too small to either motivate

in particular, have gradually declined,

residential mobility for black house-

potential victims to pursue a complaint

but remain high — especially in many

holds, but middle- and high-income

or deter violators from discriminating.28

of the larger cities of the Midwest and

black households continue to live in

The total number of private legal actions Northeast.34 Both Hispanic-white and

segregated, predominantly minority

and HUD, FHAP, and FHIP complaints,

Asian-white segregation, by dissimilar-

neighborhoods.41 Black households

numbering in the tens of thousands

ity index, have held relatively stable

earning $14,999 or less per year, for

annually, still pales in comparison to

since 1980, while the isolation of both

example, live in neighborhoods that are,

the estimated millions of instances

groups has increased steadily over

on average, 61 percent black and 28

of housing discrimination occurring

the same period.35 In a study of 367

percent white, whereas black house-

each year.29

metropolitan areas, Logan and Stults

holds earning more than $1 million

found that in 2010, the typical white

per year live in neighborhoods averag-

Research shows, however, that despite

resident lived in a neighborhood that

ing 45 percent black and 44 percent

these limitations, enforcement efforts

was 75 percent white, 8 percent black,

white — only slightly different from

do make a difference. In a study of

11 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent

the neighborhood composition of the

data from HUD’s discrimination stud-

Asian, whereas the typical black resi-

typical black household described above.42

ies and complaint database, DOJ, the

dent lived in a neighborhood that was

Of the 50 metropolitan areas with the

National Fair Housing Alliance, and

45 percent black, 35 percent white, 15

largest black populations, in only 2 did

the U.S. Census Bureau covering 1989

percent Hispanic, and 4 percent Asian

affluent black households live in less

to 2000, Ross and Galster found that

and the typical Hispanic resident lived

poor neighborhoods than average

metropolitan areas in which HUD and

in a neighborhood that was 46 percent

white households.43

HUD-supported FHIP and FHAP agen-

Hispanic, 35 percent white, 11 percent

cies win larger monetary awards have

black, and 7 percent Asian.36 Multiple

Some degree of residential segrega-

shown greater decreases in housing

factors contribute to the persistence

tion can be attributed to household

6

Mark Lozier, Fair Share Housing Development

Children play in front of the Ethel R. Lawrence Homes, an affordable rental apartment complex built by Fair Share Housing Development in Mount Laurel Township, New Jersey.

preferences. There is evidence that some

In this case, for example, a black house-

(LIHTC) program, one of the primary

black households prefer to live in

hold could move to a proportionately

sources of funding for affordable housing,

majority black neighborhoods, but

integrated neighborhood only to find

may not generally increase segrega-

this preference is generally considered

the neighborhood soon transitioning to

tion, but they have little fair housing

to have a relatively small effect on

being predominantly black. Household

oversight and may fail to further fair

residential patterns; more commonly,

preferences among whites and racial

housing aims by not promoting a more

black households indicate a preference

minorities are varied, however, and

equitable geographic distribution of

for evenly integrated neighborhoods.44

can function to decrease segregation

affordable housing opportunities.50

Self-segregation among white house-

as well. Glaeser and Vigdor find that

LIHTC properties tend to be clustered

holds, however, is thought to play

movement of black households from

in high-density areas with higher poverty

a more significant role, with white

urban areas in the Midwest and North-

levels and fewer non-Hispanic whites.51

households willing to pay more to

east to less segregated Sun Belt areas

On the other hand, LIHTC properties

live in predominantly white neighbor-

and, to a lesser extent, the movement

bring much-needed investment and

hoods.45 Card, Mas, and Rothstein,

of white households into predominant-

affordable, high-quality housing to

analyzing census data from 1970 to

ly black urban neighborhoods explain

high-poverty neighborhoods. The

2000, found evidence of neighbor-

part of the observed decline in black-

tension between the worthy, sometimes

hood transitions in which an integrated

white segregation.48

competing goals of fostering investment

neighborhood would remain relatively

in poor minority areas and creating

stable until the minority share reached

Public policies can also contribute to

affordable housing in low-poverty,

a “tipping point” ranging from between

continuing segregation. The discrimi-

opportunity-rich areas is not easily

5 percent to more than 20 percent,

natory effects of ostensibly race-neutral

resolved, especially in an era of lim-

after which the racial composition of

policies such as density zoning can limit

ited resources. The affordable housing

the neighborhood would rapidly shift

fair housing choice. For example, a

advocacy groups Enterprise Commu-

as white residents left.46 This dynamic

zoning ordinance that has the effect of

nity Partners, Local Initiatives Support

demonstrates the limited ability of an

restricting construction of multifamily

Corporation, and the National Housing

individual household to live in its

housing to predominantly minority areas

Trust have expressed that policymakers

preferred type of neighborhood — what

perpetuates segregation.49 Policies such

Sharkey calls “unselected change.”47

as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

7

Evolution of Federal Strategies To Promote Fair Housing

Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act,

government enforcement efforts in

and had falsely certified that it had

the federal government has gradually but

jurisdictions with substantially equiva-

affirmatively furthered fair housing.

progressively strengthened the enforce-

lent fair housing protections.6

The case resulted in a settlement in

ment apparatus for antidiscrimination.

which the county agreed to ensure the

n 1982 – Havens Realty Corp. v. Cole-

development of affordable housing in

n 1968 – Fair Housing Act. Prohibits dis-

man. U.S. Supreme Court decision

low-poverty neighborhoods.11

crimination on the basis of race, color,

ruling that fair housing testers have

religion, and national origin in most

standing to sue in court.7

n 2012 – Equal Access to Housing in

housing and directs federal agencies

HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual

to administer programs “in a manner

n 1988 – Fair Housing Initiatives Pro-

Orientation or Gender Identity Final

affirmatively to further” fair housing.1

gram (FHIP). Established as part of the

Rule. Prohibits discrimination against

Housing and Community Development

otherwise eligible individuals or families

n 1972 – Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life

Act of 1987, FHIP funds the education

on the basis of sexual orientation, gen-

Insurance Company. U.S. Supreme

and enforcement efforts of local non-

der identity, or marital status in HUD-

Court decision recognizing integration

profit fair housing organizations.8

assisted or -insured housing.12

as part of the legislative intent of the

Fair Housing Act.2

n 1988 – Fair Housing Amendments Act.

n 2013 – Implementation of the Fair

Adds familial status and disability to

Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects

n 1974 – Housing and Community

the bases of protection under the Fair

Standard Final Rule. Formalizes the

Development Act. Adds sex to the

Housing Act and bolsters the enforce-

long-standing interpretation of HUD

prohibited bases of discrimination in

ment process by authorizing HUD

and federal appellate courts that

the Fair Housing Act.3

administrative law judges to decide

practices with discriminatory effects

cases and award damages.9

n 1976 – Hills v. Gautreaux. U.S.

may violate the Fair Housing Act, and

Supreme Court decision stating that

standardizes a three-part burden-

n 2000 – Executive Order 13166, “Im-

HUD had an obligation to implement

proving Access to Services for Persons

shifting test to determine liability under

a desegregation remedy for metro-

With Limited English Proficiency.” Re-

the Act.13

politan areas to redress past policies

quires federal agencies to ensure that

n 2013 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair

that sited public housing in minority

otherwise eligible persons with limited

Housing Proposed Rule. With Census

neighborhoods.4

English proficiency can access feder-

data and technical support, would

ally conducted or assisted programs

n 1977 – Community Reinvestment Act.

require HUD program participants to

Seeks to reduce redlining by giving

and activities, including those related to

prepare an assessment of fair hous-

federal financial regulators the ability

housing.10

ing and encourage incorporation of

to examine whether financial institu-

fair housing considerations in local

n 2009 – United States ex rel. Anti-

tions have adequately met the credit

and regional planning with the goals

Discrimination Center of Metro New

needs of the community in which they

of eliminating barriers to fair housing

York, Inc. v. Westchester County,

are chartered before approving merg-

choice and promoting desegregation

New York. District court partial sum-

ers and branch openings.5

and deconcentration of poverty.14

mary judgment ruling that Westchester

n 1979 – Fair Housing Assistance

County had failed to consider race in

Program (FHAP). Supports local

preparing their analysis of impediments

1 Fair Housing Act, 1968, Pub. L. 90–284.

Fair Housing Act: The Fair Housing Assistance

11 Olatunde Johnson. 2011. “The Last Plank: Rethinking

2 Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 409

Program,” in Silverman and Patterson, 35.

Public and Private Power to Advance Fair Housing,”

U.S. 205, 211 (1972).

7 Seabrook, Lamb, and Wilk 2011, 59–60.

University of Pennsylvania Journal of

Constitutional Law 13:5, 1216–8.

3 Housing and Community Development Act, 1974, Pub.

8 Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Pub.

L. 93–383.

L. 100–242, Section 561.

12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2012. “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs

4 Nicholas R. Seabrook, Charles M. Lamb, and Eric M.

9 Fair Housing Amendments Act, 1988, Pub. L. 100–430;

Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,”

Wilk. 2011. “Federal Courts and Fair Housing Policy,” in

Michael H. Schill and Samantha Friedman. 1999. “The

Federal Register 77:23 (February 3), 5662–76.

Fair and Affordable Housing in the U.S.:

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The First De-

Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions, eds. Robert Mark

cade,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and

13 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson, Boston: Brill, 49.

Research 4:3, 58–9.

ment. 2013. “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s

Discriminatory Effects Standard,” Federal Register 78:32

5 Community Reinvestment Act, 1977, Pub. L. 95–128.

10 U.S. President. 2000. “Executive Order 13166 of August

(February 15), 11460–82.

6 Eric M. Wilk, Charles M. Lamb, and Nicholas R.

11, 2000: Improving Access to Services for Persons With

14 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Seabrook. 2011. “Intergovernmental Enforcement of the

Limited English Proficiency,” Federal Register 65:159

(August 16), 50121–2.

2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Federal

Register 78:139 (July 19), 43710–43.

8

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

should ensure that both of these goals

production of affordable housing (includ-

and ethnic concentrations of poverty.

are pursued equally.52

ing federally subsidized public housing) In addition to its antidiscrimination

in affluent neighborhoods through

provisions, the Fair Housing Act cre-

Costs. Segregation reflects not only

inclusionary zoning. Children in public

ated parameters for more proactive

restricted choices in housing but

housing who attended the county’s

approaches to fair housing policy under

restricted life chances. A growing body

most advantaged schools performed

its mandate that all federal agencies

of evidence shows that where one lives

better in math and reading than did

operate “in a manner affirmatively to

greatly determines access to amenities

public housing residents who attended

further” the purposes of the Fair Housing

and opportunities, ultimately affecting

the county’s least advantaged schools

Act; that is, “to take steps proactively to

one’s health, education, and other life

and significantly reduced their achieve-

overcome historic patterns of segrega-

outcomes.53 Over the past four decades,

ment gap compared with nonpoor

tion, promote fair housing choice, and

income, resources, and amenities

students.60

foster inclusive communities for all.”65

increasingly have been concentrated

in affluent neighborhoods whereas

These racial disparities in access to

Subsequent legislation and the inter-

many low-income black and Hispanic

education, healthcare, and high-value

pretation of the courts has reinforced

neighborhoods have become areas of

housing create racial disparities in

that both HUD and HUD grantees

concentrated poverty.54 Of the census

income, wealth, and mobility. Shap-

— the states, localities, and other orga-

tracts in which more than 40 percent

iro, Meschede, and Osoro find that

nizations that receive federal funding

of the population is below the federal

the primary drivers of the black-white

— have an obligation to affirmatively

poverty level, 78 percent are pre-

wealth gap are years of homeowner-

further fair housing, including the

dominantly populated by members of

ship, income, unemployment, college

promotion of “truly integrated and bal-

minority groups.55 These high-poverty,

education, and financial inheritance,

anced living patterns.”66 In 1987, writing

resource-deprived neighborhoods

all of which can be directly or indirectly

the decision for NAACP v. Secretary of

result in myriad adverse outcomes for

shaped by past and present housing

Housing and Urban Development, then-

their residents.56

discrimination and segregation.61

circuit judge Stephen Breyer concluded

that the “broader goal [of the Fair Hous-

Residential segregation can physically

The high costs of segregation are borne

ing Act] suggests an intent that HUD do

separate minorities from employment

not only by residents in racial and

more than simply not discriminate itself;

opportunities and exacerbate the

ethnic concentrations of poverty but

it reflects the desire to have HUD use

problems of employment discrimina-

also by the larger community. The

its grant programs to assist in ending

tion, differentials in skills and experience,

negative health, employment, and crime

discrimination and segregation, to the

and limited access to information about

outcomes common to these areas exac-

point where the supply of genuinely

job opportunities.57 Vast differences

erbate the burden on the public health,

open housing increases.”67

in educational opportunities exist

welfare, and criminal justice systems.62

between the segregated neighborhoods

Unequal educational and employment

The primary mechanisms by which

of concentrated poverty and more

opportunities result in an underdevel-

HUD uses its grant programs to affir-

affluent neighborhoods. Card and

oped labor force, and, as Squires writes,

matively further fair housing have been

Rothstein find that in more segregated

“[h]igh levels of racial segregation

to require that grantees conduct an

cities, a larger gap exists between the

reduce the economic productivity of

“analysis of impediments” (AI) to fair

test scores of black and white students,

regional economies.”63 Recent research

housing choice and for the participants

and Wodtke, Harding, and Elwert

by Li, Campbell, and Fernandez finds

to certify that they will affirmatively

find that living in a severely disadvan-

that racial segregation negatively af-

further fair housing. Analysis by HUD,

taged neighborhood greatly reduces the

fects economic growth in both cities

the U.S. Government Accountability

likelihood of high school graduation,

and suburbs.64

Office (GAO), and other stakeholders,

especially for black students.58 Researchers

however, has found these mechanisms

have also found associations between

Fair Housing and

to be largely ineffective.68 Too often,

residential segregation by race and

Opportunity for All

HUD determined, grantees either had

disparities in infant and adult mortality

Given the high individual, household,

inadequate strategies for furthering fair

rates, environmental quality, and access

and societal costs of enduring segrega-

housing or were not furthering fair housing

to primary care services.59 Conversely,

tion, desegregation must remain a

at all.69 The AI process, according to a

some evidence suggests that those who

policy priority. Antidiscrimination

GAO survey, lacked adequate guidance,

are able to escape areas of concentrated

enforcement is essential to ensuring

technical assistance, and oversight from

poverty enjoy better outcomes. For

true housing choice but is not designed

HUD; consequently, AIs were poorly

example, since the 1970s, Montgomery

to combat segregation — particularly

integrated into planning efforts, and

County, Maryland has fostered the

the formation and persistence of racial

many were severely outdated.70 Out of

9

the 441 AIs that GAO reviewed in 2010,

Public opinion data show increasing ac-

attempts to quantify the incidence of discrimination

29 percent were dated from 2004 or

ceptance of diverse residential patterns,

such as HUD’s Housing Discrimination Study under

count discrimination. See also, Freiberg.

earlier, with fully 11 percent of the total and incidences of discrimination ap-5 Margery Austin Turner, Rob Santos, Diane K. Levy,

dating back to the 1990s.71

pear to be declining. However, housing

Doug Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, Rob Pitingolo, and

the Urban Institute. 2013. Housing Discrimination

discrimination and segregation persist,

Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012, U.S. Depart-

HUD has recognized these criticisms

limiting equal opportunity and contrib-

ment of Housing and Urban Development, xix, xxii.

and is committed to improving the

uting to growing economic inequality.

6 Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton. 1993.

American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the

AI process. Since the beginning of

Where one lives still determines access

Underclass, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 96–7.

FY 2010, HUD has reviewed the AIs

to amenities, resources, and op-

7 Turner et al. 2013, xi, xiv–xvi.

of hundreds of jurisdictions and has

portunities and consequently creates

8 Gary A. Dymski. 2009. “Racial Exclusion and the

Political Economy of the Subprime Crisis,” Historical

conducted dozens of compliance

disparities in important life outcomes.

Materialism 17:2, 150.

reviews to ensure that grantees are

The response to this association of place

9 Thomas P. Boehm, Paul D. Thistle, and Alan Schlott-

affirmatively furthering fair housing

and opportunity is twofold: first, ensuring

mann. 2006. “Rates and Race: An Analysis of Racial

Disparities in Mortgage Rates,” Housing Policy Debate

goals.72 The agency is currently review-

that people have the mobility and fair

17:1, 144; James B. Kau, Donald C. Keenan, and

ing comments on proposals related to

housing choice to access amenity-rich

Henry J. Munneke. 2012. “Racial Discrimination and

Mortgage Lending,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and

the goal of affirmatively furthering fair

neighborhoods, and second, striving

Economics 45:2, 289–304; William C. Apgar Jr., Christo-

housing and is considering its next steps.

to make every neighborhood a desir-

pher E. Herbert, and Priti Mathur. 2009. “Risk or Race:

An Assessment of Subprime Lending Patterns in Nine

Even so, it remains important to recog-

able, well-resourced, opportunity-rich

Metropolitan Areas,” U.S. Department of Housing and

nize that, as Casey Dawkins, associate

neighborhood. Fair housing policy

Urban Development, iii.

professor of urban studies and planning

furthers both of these objectives. Carr

10 Andra C. Ghent, Rubén Hernández-Murillo, and

Michael T. Owyang. 2014. “Differences in Subprime

at the University of Maryland, puts it,

and Kutty, editors of Segregation: The Rising

Loan Pricing Across Races and Neighborhoods,”

“[t]he tools that have the largest impact

Costs for America, state that “enforcing

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Kathleen C. Engel

and Patricia A. McCoy. 2008. “From Credit Denial to

on segregation outcomes — zoning,

fair housing and fair lending laws is one

Predatory Lending,” in Segregation: The Rising Costs for

infrastructure decisions, [and so on] —

of the most direct means to improve

America, eds. James H. Carr and Nandinee K. Kutty,

New York: Routledge, 92.

are really locally driven.”73 Localities

access to opportunities and, by exten-

11 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

such as Louisville, Kentucky have taken

sion, economic and social mobility in

ment. 2011. “Annual Report on Fair Housing, Fiscal

the initiative in assessing how munici-

America.”75 Among other things, making

Year 2011, ” 19.

12 Margery Austin Turner, Carla Herbig, Deborah Kaye,

pal planning can further fair housing

neighborhoods more desirable depends

Julie Fenderson, and Diane Levy. 2005. Discrimination

and reduce segregation. Building off

on equal access to credit for buying and

Against Persons with Disabilities: Barriers at Every Step,

of a thorough 2010 AI, the Louisville

rehabilitating homes, on fair foreclo-

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment, 2–3, 26.

Metro Human Relations Commission

sure processes and maintenance of real

13 The Equal Rights Center and National Council of La

developed “Making Louisville Home

estate owned properties, and on the

Raza. 2013. “Puertas Cerradas: Housing Barriers for

Hispanics.”

for Us All: A 20-Year Action Plan for Fair

judicious siting of subsidized housing.

14 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Housing.” Prepared by the University of

And nondiscrimination and equitable

ment. 2011. “Annual Report on Fair Housing, Fiscal

Louisville Anne Braden Institute for

distribution of affordable, high-quality

Year 2011, ” 19.

15

Social Justice Research and the Metro-

housing are crucial to opening access to

Samantha Friedman, Angela Reynolds, Susan Scovill,

Florence R. Brassier, Ron Campbell, and McKenzie

politan Housing Coalition with funding

low-poverty, high-asset neighborhoods

Ballou. 2013. “An Estimate of Housing Discrimination

from HUD, the plan outlines short-, me-

for all. Both the enforcement efforts

Against Same-Sex Couples, ” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, iv, 1; U.S. Department

dium-, and long-term actions to promote

of HUD, FHAP, and FHIP to eliminate

of Housing and Urban Development. 2012. “Equal

fair housing ranging from community

discriminatory treatment in housing

Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of

Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” Federal Regis-

education and engagement to steps

transactions and proactive local efforts

ter 77:23 (February 3), 5662.

to increase the supply of affordable

to reduce barriers to housing choice

16 Tamica H. Daniel. 2010. “Bringing Real Choices to

the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Addressing

housing. The plan infuses the policies

will be necessary to ensure fair housing

Voucher Discrimination Under the Federal Fair Hous-

and practices of the Louisville metropoli-

and equal opportunity.

ing Act,” The Georgetown Law Journal 98:3, 770–1, 776.

tan area’s many government departments

17 Ibid., 771.

18

and agencies with a focus on affirmatively

1 Owner-occupied buildings with no more than four

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. 1998. “Fair Housing Enforcement — Occu-

furthering fair housing.

units, single-family housing sold or rented without a bro-

74 Such proac-

ker, and housing operated by organizations and private

pancy Standards Notice of Statement of Policy,” Federal tive efforts to reduce segregation through

Register 63:243 (December 18), 70256; Jonathan

clubs that limit occupancy to members may be exempt.

Rothwell and Douglas S. Massey. 2009. “The Effect of

local planning processes such as residential 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban

and transportation development coupled

2011. “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Dis-

Areas,” Urban Affairs Review 44:6, 779–806.

criminatory Effects Standard,” Federal Register 76:221

19

with antidiscrimination enforcement

Rothwell and Massey, 801.

(November 16), 70924.

20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

hold the promise of creating true

3 Fred Freiberg. 2013. “Racial Discrimination in

ment. 2013. “Implementation of the Fair Housing

fair housing choice.

Housing: Underestimated and Overlooked, ” Fair Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard,” Federal Register

Housing Justice Center, 7.

78:32 (February 15), 11460.

4 National Fair Housing Alliance. 2004. “2004 Fair Housing

21 Robert G. Schwemm and Sara K. Pratt. 2009. “Dispa-

Trends Report,” 4–5. NFHA and others believe that

rate Impact under the Fair Housing Act: A Proposed

10

Approach, ” National Fair Housing Alliance, 31–41.

Discrimination?” in Neighborhood and Life Chances:

59 Dolores Acevedo-Garcia and Theresa L. Osypuk. 2008.

22 Fair Housing Act, 1968, Pub. L. 90–284, Section 808

How Place Matters in Modern America, eds. Harriet New-

“Impacts of Housing on Health,” in Segregation: The

(d), Section 813.

burger, Eugenie Ladner Birch, and Susan M. Wachter,

Rising Costs for America, 199; Dolores Acevedo-Garcia,

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 300;

Kimberly A. Lochner, Theresa L. Osypuk, and S.V.

23 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Engel and McCoy, 85.

Subramanian. 2003. “Future Directions in Residen-

ment. 2011. “Annual Report on Fair Housing, Fiscal

tial Segregation and Health Research: A Multilevel

Year 2011, ” 16, 42.

40 Dawkins 2004, 395–6; Camille Zubrinsky Charles.

2003. “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segrega-

Approach, ” American Journal of Public Health 93:2, 215; 24 National Fair Housing Alliance. 2013. “Modernizing

tion,” Annual Review of Sociology 29, 177; Gregory D.

Darrell J. Gaskin, Gniesha Y. Dinwiddie, Kitty S. Chan,

the Fair Housing Act for the 21st Century: 2013 Fair

Squires. 2008. “Fair Housing Enforcement Efforts,” in

and Rachael R. McCleary. 2012. “Residential Segrega-

Housing Trends Report, ” 23.

Segregation: The Rising Costs for America, 308.

tion and the Availability of Primary Care Physicians, ”

25 Ibid., 43; National Fair Housing Alliance. 2012. “Fair

Health Services Research 47:6, 2369.

41 Spivak and Monnat, 1432.

Housing in a Changing Nation,” 23; Robert Mark

60 Heather Schwartz. 2010. Housing Policy Is School Policy:

Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson. 2012. “The Four

42 Ibid.

Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic

Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique

43 John R. Logan. 2011. “Separate and Unequal: The

Success in Montgomery County, Maryland, New York: The

of Fair Housing Policy in the USA,” Critical Sociology

Neighborhood Gap for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians

Century Foundation, 4–5.

38:1, 130.

in Metropolitan America, ” US2010 Project, 1.

61 Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro.

26 Silverman and Patterson, 124.

44 Dawkins, 2004, 395–6; Maria Krysan, Mick P. Couper,

2013. “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth

27 Stephen L. Ross and George C. Galster. 2007. “Fair

Reynolds Farley, and Tyrone A. Forman. 2009. “Does

Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide,”

Housing Enforcement and Changes in Discrimination

Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences? Results

Institute on Assets and Social Policy, 1.

between 1989 and 2000: An Exploratory Study,” in

from a Video Experiment,” American Journal of Sociol-

62 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Fragile Rights within Cities: Government, Housing, and

ogy 115:2, 528.

ment. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,”

Fairness, ed. John Goering, Lanham, MD: Rowman &

45 David M. Cutler, Edward L. Glaeser, and Jacob L.

43714.

Littlefield, 179; Martin Abravanel. 2006. Do We Know

Vigdor. 1999. “The Rise and Decline of the American

63 Squires, 309.

More Now? Trends in Public Knowledge, Support, and Use

Ghetto,”  Journal of Political Economy 107:3, 476, 487.

of Fair Housing Law, Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

64 Huiping Li, Harrison Campbell, and Steven Fernan-

46 David Card, Alexandre Mas, and Jesse Rothstein.

ment of Housing and Urban Development, 36–7.

dez. 2013. “Residential Segregation, Spatial Mismatch

2008. “Tipping and the Dynamics of Segregation,” The

and Economic Growth across US Metropolitan Areas, ”

28 Silverman and Patterson, 128.

Quarterly Journal of Economics 123:1, 212.

Urban Studies 50:13, 2642, 2655.

29 National Fair Housing Alliance, 2004, 4–5; Ola-

47 Patrick Sharkey. 2012. “Temporary Integration, Resil-

65 Fair Housing Act, 1968, Pub. L. 90–284, Section 808

tunde Johnson. 2011. “The Last Plank: Rethinking

ient Inequality: Race and Neighborhood Change in

(d), (e) (5); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Public and Private Power to Advance Fair Housing, ”

the Transition to Adulthood,” Demography 49:3, 907–8.

Development. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair

University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law

48 Glaeser and Vigdor, 2.

Housing,” 43710.

13:5, 1202–3; Michael Schill. 2007. “Implementing

49 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

the Federal Fair Housing Act: The Adjudication of

66 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. 2011. “Implementation of the Fair Housing

Complaints,” in Goering, 169.

ment. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,”

Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard,” 70924.

43712; Philip D. Tegeler. 2005. “The Persistence of

30 Ross and Galster, 190.

50 National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal

Segregation in Government Housing Programs,” in

31 Turner et al. 2013, xxiii.

Opportunity. 2008. The Future of Fair Housing: Report of

The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice

32 Maria Krysan. 2011. “Data Update to Racial Attitudes

the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Op-

in Metropolitan America, ed. Xavier de Sousa Briggs,

in America. ” An update and website to complement

portunity, National Commission on Fair Housing and Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 197;

Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo,

Equal Opportunity, 40; Keren M. Horn and Katherine

Otero v. N.Y. City Housing Authority, 484 F.2d 1122 (2d

and Maria Krysan. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends

M. O’Regan. 2011. “The Low Income Housing Tax

Cir. 1973); Shannon v. HUD, 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir.

and Interpretations. Rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Credit and Racial Segregation, ” Furman Center for 1970); Austin W. King. 2013. “Affirmatively Further:

University Press , 1997; Abravanel.

Real Estate and Urban Policy.

Reviving the Fair Housing Act’s Integrationist

33 Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor. 2012. “The End

51 Casey J. Dawkins. 2011. Exploring the Spatial Distribution

Purpose, ” New York University Law Review 88:6, 2184;

of the Segregated Century: Racial Separation in

of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties, U.S. Depart-Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 409

America’s Neighborhoods, 1890-2010,” Civic Report 66, ment of Housing and Urban Development, iii.

U.S. 205, 211 (1972); The decision quotes the bill’s

Center for State and Local Leadership at the Manhat-

sponsor, Walter Mondale, regarding the aim of inte-

52 Letter, Terri Ludwig, Enterprise Community Partners,

tan Institute, 1; For an explanation of the dissimilarity

gration. Mondale, Congressional Record, 90th Cong., 2d

Michael Rubinger, Local Initiatives Support Corpora-

index, see Douglas S. Massey, Jonathan Rothwell, and

sess., 1968, 114: 3422.

tion, and Michael Bodaken, National Housing Trust,

Thurston Domina. 2009. “The Changing Bases of

67

to Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel,

NAACP v Secretary of HUD, 817 F. 2d 149 (1st Cir.

Segregation in the United States,” The ANNALS of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 17

1987).

American Academy of Political and Social Science 626:1, 76.

September 2013.

68 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

34 Paul A. Jargowsky. 2014. “Segregation, Neighbor-

53 James H. Carr and Nandinee K. Kutty. 2008. “The

ment. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,”

hoods, and Schools,” in Choosing Homes, Choosing

New Imperative for Equality,” in Segregation: The Rising

43710; National Commission on Fair Housing and

Schools, eds. Annette Lareau and Kimberly Goyette,

Costs for America, 17; Eugenie L. Birch, Harriet B.

Equal Opportunity, 44.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 103–6.

Newburger, and Susan M. Wachter. 2011. “Preface” in

69 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

35 Jorge De la Roca, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine

Newburger, et al., xii.

ment. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,”

M. O’Regan. 2013. “Race and Neighborhoods in the

54 Kendra Bischoff and Sean F. Reardon. 2013. “Residen-

43725.

21st Century: What Does Segregation Mean Today?”

tial Segregation by Income, 1970-2009, ” US2010, 33–4.

70 Ibid., 43713.

Regional Science and Urban Economics, 3. Corrected

55 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

71 U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010. Hous-

proof available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar-

ing and Community Grants: HUD Needs to Enhance Its

ticle/pii/S0166046213000720

ment. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,”

. Accessed 3 June 2014.

Federal Register 78:139 (July 19), 43714.

Requirements and Oversight of Jurisdictions’ Fair Housing

36 John R. Logan and Brian J. Stults. 2011. “The Persis-

56 David M. Cutler and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are

Plans.

tence of Segregation in the Metropolis: New Findings

Ghettos Good or Bad?” The Quarterly Journal of Eco-72 Poverty & Race Research Action Council. 2013. “Af-

from the 2010 Census, ” Census Brief prepared for nomics 112:3, 827.

firmatively Furthering Fair Housing at HUD: A First

Project US2010, 3.

57 Margery Austin Turner. 2008. “Residential Segrega-

Term Report Card, Part II,” 10.

37 Andrew L. Spivak and Shannon M. Monnat. 2013.

tion and Employment Inequality,” in Segregation: The

73 Interview with Casey Dawkins, April 2014.

“The Influence of Race, Class, and Metropolitan

Rising Costs for America, 167.

74

Area Characteristics on African-American Residential

University of Louisville Anne Braden Institute for Social

Segregation, ” Social Science Quarterly 94:5, 1415; Casey 58 David Card and Jesse Rothstein. 2007. “Racial Segre-

Justice Research. 2013. “Making Louisville Home for

J. Dawkins. 2004. “Recent Evidence on the Continuing

gation and the Black-White Test Score Gap,” Journal of

Us All: A 20-Year Action Plan for Fair Housing,” Louis-

Causes of Black-White Residential Segregation,” Journal Public Economics 91:11–12, 2158; Geoffrey T. Wodtke,

ville Metro Human Relations Commission, 1–2, 45–6.

of Urban Affairs 26:3, 379–80.

David J. Harding, and Felix Elwert. 2011. “Neighbor-

75 James H. Carr and Nandinee K. Kutty. 2008. “Attaining

hood Effects in Temporal Perspective: The Impact of

38 Dawkins 2004, 395–6.

a Just (and Economically Secure) Society,” in Segrega-

Long-Term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage

tion: The Rising Costs for America, 325.

39 Stephen L. Ross. 2011. “Understanding Racial Segre-

on High School Graduation,” American Sociological gation: What Is Known About the Effect of Housing

Review 76:5, 713.

11

Research Spotlight

Highlights

n Paired testing is a critical methodology for assessing discrimination in the housing market for both research and enforcement purposes, but it has

some limitations.

Paired Testing

n The 2012 Housing Discrimination Study found fewer cases of overt

and the Housing

discrimination since 1977 (when the first such study was conducted), but

Discrimination

other increasingly subtle forms of discrimination against minority home-

seekers persist in both the rental and sales markets.

Studies

n A complementary HUD study has found evidence of housing discrimination

against gay and lesbian homeseekers, and forthcoming studies will report

As federal, state, and local govern-

ment agencies and advocacy

on housing market discrimination based on source of income and against

organizations continue to confront

families with children, persons with physical disabilities, and persons with

the shifting challenges of housing

mental disabilities.

discrimination, research to understand

the extent of the problem has become

discrimination since the 1960s, the fed-

cannot legally include the submission

essential to developing successful

eral government substantially expanded

of fraudulent information in a rental

enforcement strategies and educational

use of the methodology for research

or loan application to examine bias at

campaigns. Many researchers and

purposes.1 When used in fair housing

the final transaction point, and dis-

institutions have contributed to the

enforcement, paired testing’s strength

crimination against current tenants or

body of knowledge on this topic, but

is its ability to flexibly respond to

homeowners cannot be tested through

the most significant efforts have been

the circumstances of an individual

this methodology because the char-

HUD’s Housing Discrimination Studies

complaint (see “Fair Housing Enforce-

acteristics of the residents are already

(HDS), especially the national housing

ment Organizations Use Testing To

known to the provider.4 In addition, the

market studies that have been pro-

Expose Discrimination,” p. 16). In the

use of unambiguously qualified candi-

duced roughly every 10 years since the

context of research, however, paired

dates and matched characteristics in

late 1970s and which rely on a paired-

testing requires rigorously consistent

paired-testing studies does not reflect

testing methodology to assess the

protocols and representative sampling the reality of systematic racial differ-

incidence of discrimination in the hous-

to yield generalizable results about the

ences in income in the United States,

ing search process. This article discusses

prevalence of housing discrimination at

as the average incomes assigned to

paired testing’s benefits and limitations,

the national or metropolitan level.2

minority testers are higher than those

the results of the most recent HDS and

of minority homeseekers in most hous-

changes over time, and other current

Although paired testing has become

ing markets.5 The authors of the 2012

and forthcoming research that will

an essential methodology for assessing

HDS argue that these last two factors

illustrate the level of discrimination in

levels of discrimination, researchers

lead to results that could understate the

the American housing market.

also note its limitations. Because race

amount of discrimination in American

(or another characteristic being tested

housing markets.

Paired Testing

for discrimination) cannot be randomly

Much of the research into housing

assigned, these studies do not have a

The Housing

discrimination, including HUD’s HDS,

true experimental design; in addition,

Discrimination Study

relies on paired testing, a methodology

because the auditors are usually aware

There have been four national HDSs,

in which two testers assume the role of

of the study’s purposes, “unobserved

released in 1977, 1989, 2000, and 2012.

applicants with equivalent social and

characteristics of the auditor, including

Although the studies have consistently

economic characteristics who differ

their own expectations of discrimina-

employed paired-testing methods, the

only in terms of the characteristic being

tion, may become confounded with

scope of the studies has expanded and

tested for discrimination, such as race,

the experimental variable of race,” ac-

the focus has shifted with each edition;

disability status, or marital status. De-

cording to Massey and Blank.3 Studies

the first study focused only on discrimi-

pending on which part of the housing

such as HDS address this issue through

nation against blacks, the 1989 study

transaction process is being tested, the

tester training that promotes rigorous

added discrimination against Hispanics,

matched candidates may only request

adherence to standardized interview

and the 2000 study was designed explic-

appointments from housing providers,

protocols. In housing discrimination

itly to measure changes in discrimination

or they may visit in person. Although

investigations, paired testing can-

patterns over time and included smaller

fair housing groups have used paired

not be applied to all portions of the

studies to estimate levels of discrimination

testing to investigate cases of reported

transaction process; testing protocols

against Asians and Native Americans.6

12

The most recent study, “Housing

discrimination can lead to differences

n

How many units are available?

Discrimination Against Racial and

in treatment between white and minor-

Ethnic Minorities 2012” (HDS 2012),

ity testers, HDS 2012 tests both the

3. If units are available,

has samples designed to produce esti-

gross measure of discrimination — the

n

What rent is quoted?

mates of housing discrimination against

share of tests in which the white tester

n

Is the homeseeker shown available units?

blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the na-

was favored over the minority tester —

n

How many units are shown?

tional housing market and also includes

and the net measure, which subtracts

n

How helpful is the agent (increasingly

estimates of black and Hispanic rental

the share of tests in which the minor-

insignificant as a measure of discrimi-

discrimination for a subset of major

ity tester is favored over the white tester

nation)?9

metropolitan areas.7

from the gross measure. The authors of

HDS 2012 place greater emphasis on

Questions asked in the sales market

As the most recent large-scale study

the net measure; as they state, “Analysis

are largely the same but also consider

on the topic, HDS 2012 likely gives

from the past 25 years strongly sug-

the racial and ethnic composition of

the most comprehensive view of the

gests that gross measures reflect a lot of

the tracts where homes are shown to

current state of housing discrimination

random differences in treatment, and

assess whether the agent is “steering”

against well-qualified blacks, Hispanics,

that net measures more accurately re-

the homebuyer toward or away from

and Asians in the United States. This

flect the systematic disadvantages faced

certain neighborhoods.10

study, however, provides a conservative,

by minority homeseekers.”8 As noted

lower-bound estimate of the average

previously, however, net measures can

Overall, HDS 2012 shows fewer cases

measure of housing discrimination in

understate overall levels of housing

of overt discrimination. Well-qualified

the nation. The study involved 8,047

discrimination.

minority testers are rarely denied appoint-

paired tests across 28 metropolitan

ments outright, and “when renters meet

areas: 4,838 in the rental market and

HDS 2012 assesses differences in treatment in person with housing providers, they 3,209 in the sales market. Sales tests

at multiple steps in the rental housing

are almost always told about at least one

were conducted in similar numbers

inquiry process, and testers record the

available unit.”11 Nevertheless, statisti-

for each minority group; however,

results of the following questions:

cally significant forms of discrimination

rental tests using black and Hispanic

remain in both the rental and sales

testers were conducted more frequently

1. Is the homeseeker able to make an

markets. Rental tests conducted for

than those using Asian testers for the

appointment to meet with an agent?

HDS 2012 reveal the following:

purpose of assessing metropolitan-

level discrimination against black and

2. If an appointment has been made,

n

White testers were 9 percentage

Hispanic renters in eight sites each.

is the homeseeker told that at least one

points more likely to be told about

Because random factors besides

unit is available?

more available units than were black

testers, yielding about 0.2 fewer

available units per test in aggregate.

White testers were also more likely

than black testers to be offered a

lower rent (although the difference

is very small), told about rent incen-

tives, and told that fees and security

deposits are negotiable. Agents were

more likely to ask black testers ques-

tions about their credit standing.12

n

White testers were slightly more likely

than Hispanic testers to be told that

a unit is available and nearly 13 per-

centage points more likely to be told

about more available units, resulting

in white testers learning, on average,

about 0.22 more units per visit than

their Hispanic counterparts. As with

Reprinted with permission from the Urban Institute.

black testers, white testers were more

Source: Margery Austin Turner, Rob Santos, Diane Levy, Doug Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, and Rob Pitingolo.

likely than Hispanic testers to be

2013. “Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012,” Urban Institute for HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, xi.

offered a slightly lower rent and to

13

be informed about rent incentives

however, find that renters who could

These studies demonstrate that the

and negotiable deposits.13

more easily be identified as black or Asian

cumulative effect of these differences

at the phone or email inquiry stage,

increases the burden on minority

n

White testers were nearly 9 percent-

based on name or speech, were more

households seeking housing. They also

age points more likely than Asian

likely to be treated adversely than those

illustrate the more subtle ways in which

testers to be told about more available

perceived to be white.17

housing discrimination endures in an

units, causing whites to learn about

era of less explicit racial hostility.

0.17 more units per visit than did

Comparisons between HDS 2012

Asians. White testers were also more

and previous editions are somewhat

Additional HUD Studies

likely than Asian testers to be told

limited for various reasons. Technological

Although the national HDS has long

about rent incentives and the nego-

advances since 2000 have substantially

been HUD’s biggest contribution to

tiable nature of deposits.

changed the way people search for

research on discrimination in the U.S.

housing, and testing protocols have had

housing market, the agency has also

Compared with white testers, well-quali-

to adapt to match. In addition, hous-

commissioned other research to supple-

fied black and Asian testers in the sales

ing market conditions following the

ment the broader studies. The Fair

market were told about and shown

foreclosure crisis are considerably dif-

Housing Act does not include sexual

fewer available homes and received

ferent from those at the time of the last

orientation or gender identity among

less information and assistance. Black

HDS in 2000, which may have altered

its protected classes, although some

testers were also 2.4 percentage points

other conditions for homebuyers.18 The

states have added their own protec-

more likely to be denied an in-person

authors of HDS 2012 note several small

tions (see “Expanding Opportunity

appointment. The effect of these forms

changes from the 2000 study, but most

Through Fair Housing Choice,” p. 1).

of discrimination is that black homebuy-

are not statically significant; one excep-

HUD’s “Estimate of Housing Discrimi-

ers were told about 17 percent fewer

tion is that Hispanics “are less likely to

nation Against Same-Sex Couples,”

homes and were shown almost 18

be denied financing help than a decade

published in June 2013, complements

percent fewer homes than white tes-

ago.”19 HDS 2000, by contrast, was

the national HDS by examining the

ters were, and Asian homebuyers were

designed to be compared more directly

experiences of same-sex couples in the

told about 15.5 percent fewer homes

with previous studies. Using a slightly

rental market using internet searches

and shown almost 19 percent fewer

more conservative measure of housing

and email solicitations of interest.22, 23

homes than white testers were. By

discrimination than HDS 1989, HDS

Researchers conducted 6,833 matched

contrast, the differences between white

2000 found substantial reductions in

pairs tests across 50 randomly selected

and Hispanic testers were not statistically the incidence of discrimination against housing markets; about half of the tests

significant.14 When shown homes, white blacks and Hispanics. Black testers

compared the treatment of gay couples

testers were more likely than Hispanic

faced less discrimination in both the

with that of a heterosexual couple, and

half compared the treatment of lesbian

couples with that of a heterosexual

Renters who could more easily be identified

couple.24 As with the HDS studies, re-

searchers calculated both gross and net

as black or Asian at the phone or email

measures of discrimination.

inquiry stage were more likely to be treated

The study found that, in gross measures,

heterosexual couples were significantly

adversely than those perceived to be white.

more likely than either gay or lesbian

couples to receive responses to email

testers to be recommended to neigh-

rental and sales markets than they did

queries; according to the authors, “het-

borhoods with a higher proportion of

in 1989, as did Hispanic testers in the

erosexual couples were favored over

white residents, although the difference

sales market.20 HDS 2000 also revealed

gay couples in 15.9 percent of tests and

was not statistically significant.15

that Native Americans faced even high-

over lesbian couples in 15.6 percent

er rates of rental market discrimination

of tests.”25 Net measures of discrimina-

HDS 2012’s metropolitan area estimates

than did other minority testers in the

tion were smaller and were statistically

of discrimination against black and

three metropolitan areas that included

significant only for gay couples. Dis-

Hispanic renters did not find signifi-

Native American testers, with a net mea-

crimination was present in all markets

cant differences in the rate or severity

sure of adverse treatment in 18 percent

tested, but no clear connection existed

of discrimination based either on the

of tests compared with 8 percent for

between the level of discrimination

metropolitan area’s geographic location

blacks, 14 percent for Hispanics, and

and market size. States with legislative

or its local economy.16 The study did,

4 percent for Asians.21

protections against discrimination

14

Kristen Cuhran, The Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan

Joseph and Lauretta Codrington pose next to their picture from 1992, when the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan helped the couple settle a housing discrimination case.

on the basis of sexual orientation or

families with children, persons with

“Assessing Racial Discrimination: Methods and

gender identity (21 states and Wash-

physical disabilities, and persons with

Measures,” in Fragile Rights Within Cities, 69.

4 Turner et al. 2013, 3.

ington, DC, at the time of the study)

mental disabilities as well as discrimina-

5 Ibid.

actually showed slightly higher levels of

tion based on source of income

6 Ibid., 1–2.

adverse treatment for gay and lesbian

— principally to assess the degree of

7 Ibid., 2.

couples. The authors theorize that this

discrimination against those who pay

8 Ibid., 4.

finding could be the result of low levels

for housing with vouchers. These re-

9 Ibid., 39.

10

of enforcement, housing providers

ports will further expand HUD’s critical

Ibid., 50.

11 Ibid., 39.

not understanding local laws, or “the

role in funding research that lays bare

12 Ibid., 41–3.

possibility that protections exist in states

the current state of housing discrimina-

13 Ibid., 45–6

with the greatest needs for them.”26

tion in the United States and helps

14 Ibid., 51.

Overall, the authors argue that the

guide the efforts of advocates and fair

15 Ibid., 52.

16

discrimination observed in the study

housing enforcers at all levels.

Ibid., xviii.

17 Ibid., 73.

probably understates the actual level

18 Ibid., 2.

of discrimination in the rental housing

— Keith Fudge, HUD Staff 19 Ibid., 65.

market because the study examined

20 Turner et al. 2007, 47.

only the first step of the rental transac-

1 Alex F. Schwartz. 2006. Housing Policy in the United States,

21 Ibid., 51.

New York: Routledge, 219; Margery Austin Turner,

tion. A forthcoming HUD report will

22 The study examines only the sexual orientation of

Todd Richardson, and Stephen Ross. 2007. “Housing

same-sex couples; other potential sources of discrimi-

incorporate in-person testing that could

Discrimination in Metropolitan America: Unequal

nation, like gender identity, are not included.

Treatment of African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,

give a better estimate of the scale of

and Native Americans,” in Fragile Rights Within Cities:

23 Samantha Friedman, Angela Reynolds, Susan Scoville,

the problem; this study will also analyze

Government, Housing, and Fairness, ed. John Goering,

Florence Brassier, Ron Campbell, and McKenzie

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 40.

Ballou. 2013. “An Estimate of Housing Discrimina-

discrimination against transgender

tion Against Same-Sex Couples,” U.S. Department of

2 Margery Austin Turner, Rob Santos, Diane Levy, Doug

Americans.

Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, and Rob Pitingolo. 2013.

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy

“Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic

Development and Research, v.

Minorities 2012,” U.S. Department of Housing and

24 Ibid., v.

Other upcoming studies will report on

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development

25 Ibid., vi.

and Research, 3.

housing market discrimination against

26 Ibid., vii.

3 Douglas S. Massey and Rebecca M. Blank. 2007.

15

In Practice

Highlights

n Fair housing enforcement organizations engage in activities that pro-

Fair Housing

mote housing choice, advocate for antidiscriminatory housing policies,

Enforcement

undertake initiatives to build inclusive communities, and provide fair

housing training and education.

Organizations Use n The Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, which performed Testing To Expose

more than 10,000 tests between 1977 and 2008, has used a variety

of testing strategies to draw out recalcitrant landlords in cases where

Discrimination

standard paired testing was less effective.

n The Northwest Fair Housing Alliance, based in Spokane, Washington

As overt housing discrimination

has used various testing approaches to investigate lending discrimina-

fades but subtle forms persist,

tion, predatory lending, and fraudulent mortgage rescue programs.

proving violations of fair housing law

n Chicago’s Access Living advocates for and enforces the rights of individuals has become more difficult. Many victims

with disabilities, using testers with disabilities whenever possible.

of discrimination encounter deceptive

barriers that can be hard to detect, such

as false information, neighborhood

Metropolitan Milwaukee

services: outreach and education, fair

steering, and the application of different

Fair Housing Council

lending and fair housing enforcement,

standards.1 As a result, fair housing advo-

The Milwaukee metropolitan area is

and programs to build inclusive com-

cates have turned to testing as the most

among the most segregated in the coun-

munities.8 Bill Tisdale, president and

effective tool to investigate violations of

try; 90 percent of its African American

chief executive officer of MMFHC, says

fair housing law and gather litigation-

population is concentrated within Mil-

that the most successful antidiscrimi-

quality evidence of discriminatory

waukee’s city limits, and the area ranked

nation efforts require an interplay of

practices.2 Testing involves covert inves-

second nationwide in a 2010 study using

services: enforcement, testing, education,

tigation by testers who pose as housing

a black-white dissimilarity index (for a

desegregation programs, and technical

applicants and document the treatment

definition of the index, see “Expand-

assistance.9

they receive from housing providers.

ing Opportunity Through Fair Housing

By comparing the ways different testers

Choice,” p. 1).5 African Americans are

Fair Housing Enforcement

are treated, fair housing enforcement

known to encounter numerous barriers

Between 1977 and 2008, MMFHC han-

organizations (FHOs) are able to dem-

to fair housing choice, including discrimi-

dled 6,000 complaints and performed

onstrate that a violation of fair housing

natory terms and conditions for housing, more than 10,000 tests.10 Discrimina-

law has occurred.

refusals to rent or sell units, and restric-

tion based on race and on disability are

tions on the locations of units.6 Since

the most common forms of housing

FHOs are nonprofit organizations

1977, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair

discrimination that the MMFHC investi-

that enforce the Fair Housing Act

Housing Council (MMFHC) has worked

gates. The organization also investigates

through investigations. Investigations

to dismantle these barriers as part of its

discrimination based on gender, sex,

that include a testing component

mission to combat discrimination and

national origin, age, religion, family

are more likely to result in favorable

promote racially and economically inte-

status, marital status, sexual orientation,

outcomes for the victims.3 Although

grated neighborhoods.

and source of income as well as dis-

FHOs conduct most of these tests,

crimination against victims of domestic

the U.S. Department of Justice and

Following U.S. v. Wisconsin, a 1975

abuse. MMFHC handled 171 complaints

state and local government agencies

Supreme Court case that struck down

in 2012, referring 21 cases to an attor-

also employ testing in fair housing

Wisconsin’s ban on testing, 40 citizen

ney, the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division

investigations.4

activists created MMFHC to challenge

(ERD), a Fair Housing Assistance Agency,

the “prevailing patterns of racial and

or HUD.11

The following discussion examines

economic segregation and widespread

the implementation of different test-

discrimination in the housing market.”7

The main source of support for MMFHC’s

ing strategies and structures by two

Today, the organization operates fair

enforcement activities is HUD’s Fair

FHOs — Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair

housing centers in Milwaukee, Madison,

Housing Initiatives Program(FHIP).

Housing Council and Northwest Fair

and Appleton, extending its reach to

The organization has received FHIP

Housing Alliance — and a disability

most of the state’s population. Struc-

enforcement grants every year since

rights organization, Access Living of

tured as a membership-driven nonprofit,

2008 and most recently received a

Metropolitan Chicago.

MMFHC provides a range of fair housing

$322,629 grant from FHIP for fair

16

housing enforcement and testing.

investigation is different…as the evidence

on race.15 This form of discrimination

MMFHC also receives funds from state

emerges, you may have to change”

can be difficult for the average person

and local governments, philanthropic

course.13 MMFHC serves on the front

to detect because housing provid-

groups, and court settlements with

lines of the housing discrimination

ers can conceal their discriminatory

housing providers accused of discrimi-

nation.12

By handling client intake and investigating

Testing in Complaint-

Based Investigations

complaints, MMFHC reduces the burden

Individuals who feel that their fair

on public agencies involved in fair housing

housing rights have been violated file

a complaint with MMFHC, which per-

investigations.

forms an initial interview to evaluate

the evidence and determine whether

the complaint is covered by fair hous-

battle; by handling client intake and

practices by remaining outwardly cordial,

ing law. If the complaint has merit,

investigating complaints, the organi-

even friendly. Fred Freiberg, founding

MMFHC performs an investigation

zation reduces the burden on public

director of MMFHC and current execu-

that may include testing. The testing

agencies involved in fair housing

tive director of the Fair Housing Justice

coordinator outlines a preliminary

investigations.14

Center (FHJC) in New York, likens

testing strategy, but as Carla Wertheim,

this discrimination to a revolving door,

MMFHC’s executive vice president

In 2012, MMFHC handled 54 com-

where people are “courteously escorted

and testing coordinator, notes, “[E]very

plaints of housing discrimination based

in, out of, and ultimately away from

the desired housing.”16 One strategy

MMFHC uses to uncover discrimina-

tory practices is a paired test, in which

equally qualified white and minority

testers seek housing and document the

results. The strength of the paired test

rests on its ability to demonstrate that

race was the motivating factor in deny-

ing housing (see “Paired Testing and

the Housing Discrimination Studies,”

p. 12).17

MMFHC used paired testing in an illustra-

tive investigation of racial discrimination

against the owners of Geneva Terrace

Apartments in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

In 2009, Marcus and Brenda Young, an

African American couple, sought a two-

bedroom unit at Geneva Terrace based

on the recommendation of a white

friend and resident. Despite advertise-

ments and signs to the contrary, the

Youngs were repeatedly told that no

units were available. The Youngs then

conducted an informal test: a white

friend called the rental office and was

told that units were available. Brenda

followed up 15 minutes later and was

again told that no units were available.

With this information, the Youngs

contacted MMFHC staff, who then

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center

initiated a paired testing investigation.

As part of its education and outreach efforts, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center developed an equal opportunity board game to teach children about the effects of housing discrimination.

Two pairs of equally qualified white and

17

Fair Housing Council of Oregon

Poster contests like the one Samantha Tan (pictured here with her family) entered help raise awareness about fair housing issues and organizations.

black testers were sent to inquire about

African American or Hispanic. Other

practices. The landlord lied to the black

housing at Geneva Terrace. In both

landlords may skip a scheduled appoint-

tester, claiming that the white tester

tests, the black testers were told that no

ment when they see that the applicant is

had reserved the apartment when the

units were available, whereas the white

a member of a minority group.19 In a re-

tester actually had turned it down.

testers were told of available units. With

cent case that MMFHC investigated, an

A second white tester viewed the unit after

MMFHC assistance, the Youngs filed a

African American family made repeated the black tester and confirmed that it

complaint with HUD and the state of

attempts to see an apartment, but each

was available to rent — evidence that

Wisconsin’s ERD. Both agencies is-

time they arrived for the viewing, the

the black tester had been given false

sued charges, and the case was settled

landlord was not present. Without an in-

information. The landlord also made

three years after the initial incident of

teraction between the applicant and the disparaging statements about the black

discrimination. The Youngs received

landlord, Tisdale explains, proving that

tester to the first white tester, all of

$47,500 in damages, and the owners of

the landlord’s actions are discriminatory

which was recorded — a practice that

Geneva Terrace were required to com-

can be difficult.20 To force a meeting,

is legal in Wisconsin.21

plete fair housing training.18

the organization used a decoy test.

Systemic Testing

Although the paired testing structure

To initiate the decoy test, a white tester

Investigations

successfully uncovered evidence of

scheduled an appointment with the

In his testimony before the National

discrimination in the Geneva Terrace

landlord. As the landlord and white

Commission on Fair Housing and Equal

investigation, this method may be less

tester were leaving the unit, the minor-

Opportunity, Tisdale states that “insti-

successful when landlords block testers

ity tester intercepted them, preventing

tutional discrimination occurring on a

from viewing units because it is difficult

the landlord from evading a viewing

systemic basis must be combated holisti-

to obtain a comparison. Some landlords with the minority tester. The decoy test cally and proactively. It’s not enough

make excuses for not showing an apart-

forced the landlord to meet with the

to simply decapitate one of the hydra’s

ment when speaking on the phone with

minority tester, creating the opportunity

heads — the beast of housing discrimina-

someone who has a voice identifiable as

to collect evidence of discriminatory

tion must be struck at its heart.”22 Relying

18

on complaint-based investigations may

— structure, age, and size — to com-

significant evidence of insurance redlin-

bring relief to a single victim, but it

pare how the companies treated white

ing in the Milwaukee metropolitan

misses the vast swath of discrimina-

and nonwhite neighborhoods. In one

area.28 Freiberg argues that judicious

tion occurring in the housing market.23

example, a black tester was told that

use of demographic data can improve

Institutionalized forms of discrimination,

homes that were more than 30 years

the efficiency of fair housing enforce-

argues Tisdale, lack indicators and

old were not covered, whereas the

ment by enabling the more strategic

identifiers that would enable victims to

paired white tester was offered quotes.

use of testing resources. FHJC, for

realize that they have been victimized.

As a result of the HUD complaints,

example, uses a GIS mapping tool to iden-

Systemic investigations, on the other

Allstate, State Farm, and National Mutual

tify areas that the data suggest are likely

hand, proactively test housing discrimi-

Insurance modified their underwriting

to yield evidence of discrimination. By

nation in the marketplace in an attempt guidelines to remove restrictions on a

targeting its resources in these “areas

to change the policies or practices of a

house’s maximum age and value. State

of interest,” FHJC can more effectively

large housing provider or the behavior

Farm and Allstate also agreed to stop

document and eliminate illegal housing

of many smaller housing providers. Be-

using credit reports as the sole basis

discrimination, change discriminatory

tween 1990 and 2008, MMFHC helped

for rejecting applications, and all three

behavior, and open up communities.29

litigate 16 cases of systemic discrimina-

agreed to open service centers in urban

tion, including a multistate investigation

areas.27

Northwest Fair

into insurance redlining.24

Housing Alliance

Testing evidence in systemic investiga-

Homeownership opportunities are

In the mid-1990s, MMFHC joined the

tions can be improved with geographic

limited not only by insurance redlining

National Fair Housing Alliance and

information system (GIS) mapping

but also by lending discrimination,

FHOs in several other states to investigate

techniques and other data that help

which includes redlining, unequal ac-

redlining in the homeowner’s insur-

FHOs allocate testing resources more

cess to credit, and predatory lending.

ance market. Redlining is the practice

effectively. The insurance cases, for

These unfair lending practices restrict

of denying mortgages or insurance

example, came about in part after a

housing and neighborhood choice

to an entire geographic area. In this

spatial analysis of policyholder data by

for minority groups and weaken the

investigation, the coalition of FHOs

University of Wisconsin researchers in

financial health of households and

sought to determine whether minority

1987 and 1991 uncovered statistically

communities. In addition, the

households and households in minority

neighborhoods had the same access to

homeowner’s insurance as their white

counterparts. Through repeated paired

testing of insurance providers’ policies

and practices, the FHOs gathered

sufficient evidence to generate HUD

complaints against Allstate, State Farm,

and National Mutual Insurance in 1994

and Travelers, Aetna, Prudential, and

Liberty Mutual in 1997.25 In the Milwau-

kee market, MMFHC tested and found

evidence of disparate treatment of mi-

norities, including higher premiums for

minorities for similar coverage, better

policies in nonminority neighborhoods,

and different standards for accepting

loan applications.26

For the 1997 collection of complaints,

MMFHC recruited and trained 33 new

testing volunteers to specialize in the

investigation of discriminatory barri-

ers to homeownership. In addition to

matching the financial characteristics

of the volunteers, MMFHC matched

Northwest Fair Housing Alliance

To further its fair housing education and outreach objectives, the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance regularly the characteristics of the tested homes

attends community events such as the Unity In the Community event seen here.

19

NWFHA first received FHIP funding

for its fair lending program in 2009,

but the organization has implemented

lending investigations since its founding

in 1994. The fair lending enforcement

program covers eastern Washington,

and the organization provides training

for lenders throughout the state. In

2011, NWFHA received a FHIP capacity

building grant that enabled it to hire a

fair lending investigator, complete

more fair lending tests, and update

its fair lending program, the Eastern

Washington Fair Lending Awareness

Project.31

After receiving the capacity building

grant, NWFHA recruited 16 testers,

primarily from the organization’s exist-

ing rental and sales testing programs,

to do fair lending testing.32 Although the

basic testing structures for fair lending

investigations are similar to those for fair

housing investigations, lending transac-

tions are more complex than transactions

in rental or sales investigations. The lend-

ing process involves myriad products

— subprime loans, adjustable rate

mortgages, balloon mortgages, conven-

tional loans, and FHA-insured loans,

among others — and the applicability

of each product depends on numerous

factors such as credit score, income,

down payment size, and loan amount.33

NWFHA’s testers, therefore, received

extensive training on the lending process

and what to expect from lenders, includ-

ing the terminology used, the questions

asked, and the products offered.34

Fred Freiberg, Fair Housing Justice Center

FHJC uses a mapping tool to analyze demographic data and enable strategic deployment of testing The testers were deployed to investigate

resources.

predatory behavior among lenders and

complexity of the lending process

to provide under the Home Mortgage

mortgage rescue companies.35 During

obscures discrimination, which

Disclosure Act (HMDA). These data,

the housing bubble and subsequent

decreases the likelihood that a com-

although typically insufficient to prove

crash, FHOs shifted their investigations

plainant will come forward to initiate

discrimination, do provide information

toward identifying practices that take

an investigation. This form of housing

that can focus a testing investigation.30

advantage of vulnerable homebuyers.36

market discrimination lends itself to

The Northwest Fair Housing Alliance

The fair lending investigations at NW-

proactive and systemic investigation.

(NWFHA), based in Spokane, Wash-

FHA began with an analysis of HMDA

Because some lenders span several

ington, has developed a fair lending

and census data, coupled with market

states, settlement agreements that

enforcement program that uses HMDA

research, to identify potential subjects

remove a discriminatory practice

data, census data, and market reports

for investigation. The analysis focuses

impact a large geographic area.

to investigate lending institutions that

on disparities in a subject’s loan

The proactive aspect is aided by the

violate fair housing law.

originations and denials, history of

extensive data lenders are required

service in minority communities, and

20

Challenges to Fair

Unlike a rental test, which may be com-

Lending Testing

Many of the challenges NWFHA

pleted quickly, lending interviews involve a faced during fair lending tests relate to the spatial and temporal scale of

number of complex financial components,

its operation. As the only FHO in

eastern Washington, NWFHA’s ter-

even at the preapplication stage.

ritory is enormous: about half of the

state. Despite this geographic hurdle,

location of loans offered. For these

As part of the FHIP grant, NWFHA

NWFHA distributes its tests as evenly

investigations, the organization typically

completed 55 paired, onsite lending

as possible. Another challenge is the

uses two types of tests: single or paired.

tests of 32 lending originators.39 These

significant amount of time testers must

onsite tests were used to determine

devote to each test. Unlike a rental

NWFHA uses single-person testing

whether both minority and nonminor-

test, which may be completed quickly,

to uncover evidence of fraud or abuse

ity testers were offered similar rates

lending interviews involve a number of

in mortgage rescue programs. Mort-

and fees and similar levels of coaching

complex financial components, even at

gage rescue scams attempt to cheat

on improving the appearance of the

the preapplication stage. To stay covert

homeowners by making undeliverable

application. Paired tests also uncover

and remain credible to lenders, testers

promises or demanding substantial pay-

evidence of racial steering toward

must be knowledgeable about the en-

ments up front. In an 18-month FHIP

different loan products, such as FHA

tire lending process.44 Furthermore, says

grant period from November 2011 to

loans.40 Minority applicants, Schultz-

Schultz-Leyk, during that process tes-

May 2013, the organization conducted

Leyk explains, sometimes are provided

ters are required to take detailed notes

47 phone tests of mortgage rescue com-

information about FHA loans at great-

on the range of financial information

panies. NWFHA’s testers contacted loan

er rates than conventional loans, which

asked and services offered by each

modification companies while posing

limit an applicant’s housing choices.41

lender, which will be used as evidence

as homeowners seeking to restructure

FHA loans come with greater restric-

in follow-up reports.45 Lending testers

their loans. The testers compared the

tions on their use and have slightly

must be particularly dedicated and

companies’ modification policies and

higher fees because they require bor-

competent or the evidence they collect

marketing practices to the Mortgage

rowers to carry mortgage insurance.42

will be insufficient.

Assistance Relief Services Rule and

Washington state lending law to deter-

Following an initial test, NWFHA staff-

When these investigations reveal

mine whether the companies complied

ers review the evidence to determine

evidence of discrimination in lending,

with required disclaimers, permissible

whether follow-up tests are needed.

NWFHA seeks to include fair lending

fee structures, and representation

Marley Hochendoner, executive direc-

training and education in the concilia-

outcomes. Once NWFHA identified

tor of NWFHA, describes testing as

tory agreements. Unlike its fair housing

companies with illegal policies (14 as

an “ongoing discussion” among the

investigations, NWFHA’s fair lending

of 2014), it sent the evidence to the

testing coordinator, director, and fair

Washington Department of Financial

lending investigator to determine the

Institutions, which pursued enforce-

next course of action. The organiza-

ment action.37

tion often retests if there are significant

disparities in the treatment received

In paired testing investigations, NWFHA

by minority and nonminority testers.

determines whether the types of services

The retests help cement the evidence

or products lenders offer to minority

of discriminatory treatment by dem-

applicants differ from those offered to

onstrating that the disparate level of

nonminority applicants. The organiza-

service the testers received was not an

tion builds tester profiles so that the

isolated incident. At the conclusion

applicants are matched with similar

of the grant, NWFHA submitted nine

credit scores, incomes, and occupa-

cases to HUD, one based on onsite test-

tions. Jessica Schultz-Leyk, NWFHA’s

ing and eight based on email testing.

fair lending investigator, adds that

Three additional cases showed possible

one of the most important paired charac-

discrimination but required further

teristics is the loan-to-value ratio for the

testing.43

Steve Brady (center), pictured here with HUD Secretary

applicant’s loan, because lenders often

Shaun Donovan (left) and Fred Freiberg (right), enlisted

the services of FHJC, which conducted a testing investiga-

base prices and products on this ratio.38

tion that found evidence of housing discrimination.

21

investigations rarely have a complain-

Access Living is one of the few Centers

an accessible parking spot and required

ant, so the organization seeks smaller

for Independent Living that engages in

that the condominium association

monetary damage awards. Although

fair housing enforcement and one of

complete fair housing training and

NWFHA does receive compensation for

the few FHIP grantees housed within

adopt a policy of providing reasonable

its testing expenses, fair lending testing

a disability rights organization.49 This

accommodations and modifications for

has more flexibility to proactively push for

combination puts the organization in

individuals with disabilities.51

systemic changes in companies’ policies.46

an ideal position to investigate housing

discrimination based on disability, which

In housing discrimination cases with-

Access Living of

differs from other types of discrimina-

out overt evidence, Access Living uses

Metropolitan Chicago

tion. As Ken Walden, a fair housing

testing to enforce antidiscrimination

For decades individuals with disabilities

attorney with Access Living, explains,

laws. With a 3-year, $325,000 FHIP

had been isolated in institutions or oth-

provisions for race, family status, and

enforcement grant, Access Living is

erwise blocked in their efforts to secure

other protected classes tend to focus

able to complete about 70 tests a year.52

housing in the private market. Before

on “thou shall not” requirements,

The main type of test Access Living

the Fair Housing Act was amended in

whereas disability protections involve a

implements is a paired test using testers

1988 to add disability as a protected

“thou shall” component, necessitating

with and without a disability. As with

class, people could legally be denied

a different set of strategies and use of

testing for other protected classes, the

housing simply for having a physical or

testers.50 Therefore, Access Living’s fair

testers are matched along meaningful

mental disability. In 1980, Access Living

housing enforcement targets not only

characteristics: race, income, age, and

of Metropolitan Chicago, an organization

discriminatory actions, such as obfuscating

gender.53

staffed largely by people with disabili-

a rental search, but also the affirmative

ties, formed to remove the barriers to

requirement that the physical units are

When Access Living’s testers imple-

independent living that people with

accessible to people with visual, audi-

ment tests in the field, they encounter

disabilities face. After the 1988 amend-

tory, or mobility impairments.

a distinct set of obstacles associated

ments passed, these efforts have included

with accessing the site. For example,

enforcing housing discrimination laws.

Enforcing the Rights of

in a case Access Living investigated

The most common form of housing

Individuals With Disabilities in 2005, stairs prevented a tester in a

discrimination complaint received

If a landlord’s policy clearly violates fair

wheelchair from entering the building

by the Illinois Department of Human

housing law, Access Living helps the

through either the front or back door.

Rights is against those with physical

complainant file and pursue a com-

The tester could access the building

or mental disabilities.47 According to

plaint. Access Living recently helped a

only by rolling his wheelchair down

Marca Bristo, president and chief

woman in a wheelchair settle a dispute

the parking garage ramp.54 Also, some

apartment buildings are inaccessible

to individuals with visual impairments,

and deaf individuals sometimes have

Access Living targets not only discriminatory difficulty entering buildings that rely on actions but also the affirmative requirement

intercom systems.55

that the physical units are accessible to

Housing applicants who are deaf also

confront obstacles accessing informa-

people with visual, auditory, or mobility

tion about apartments when they use

a Telecommunications Relay Service

impairments.

(TRS). Relay systems use an operator

as an intermediary to facilitate

executive officer of Access Living,

with her condominium association over communication between a deaf

housing discrimination against indi-

an accessible parking spot. The associa-

individual and the person they are

viduals with disabilities is particularly

tion refused the woman’s request for an calling.56 Investigations into discrimi-pernicious because of the shortage of

accessible spot, removed an existing

nation against people who are deaf or

suitable housing. As Bristo explains,

accessible spot, and publicly insulted

hard of hearing often focus on the

for individuals with disabilities, finding

her. In many cases, Access Living’s

refusal of some housing providers to

housing that is available, affordable

lawyers and staff act on behalf of indi-

use a message relay system. According

(especially for those who are unable

viduals to bring about an acceptable

to Jamie Wichman, testing coordina-

to work or receive some type of

resolution with the property owners or

tor for Access Living, many landlords

assistance), and accessible can be

managers. In this case, Access Living

hang up on testers or refuse to return

difficult.48

negotiated a settlement that included

phone calls placed through a TRS

22

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago

Multifamily buildings with entrances opening directly onto the sidewalk are accessible to individuals using assistive devices, such as wheelchairs. These types of measures, when incorporated during the design and construction stage, cost less than retrofitting.

system. Wichman recalls a landlord in

units must accommodate individuals

the tester found that the kitchen was

one case eventually told the tester,

in wheelchairs. If the building has an

unusable because of inadequate floor

“I don’t have time for this,” and hung

elevator, then all of its units need to be

space for maneuvering or turning. He

up the phone. In another case, a deaf

accessible. Otherwise, only ground-floor

also noticed that the electrical boxes

tester was denied an apartment after

units must be accessible. Access Living

were mounted too high on the wall to

being told that the building was not

sends testers with and without disabilities

be accessible to someone in a wheel-

set up to accommodate “handicapped

to investigate complaints against housing chair. In a comparison test, a tester people.” Multiple calls are sometimes

providers and architects who fail to

without a wheelchair had no difficulty

necessary to collect evidence proving

design and construct buildings that

accessing the four units. After a HUD

that the landlord is refusing to speak

adhere to the provisions of the 1988

investigation, the parties entered into a

with a deaf tester because of his or her

amendments and the Americans With

consent agreement that included train-

disability and not because of another,

Disabilities Act.59

ing and $20,000 in monetary relief.60

nondiscriminatory reason. A single

dropped phone call, for example,

For example, Access Living was hired

Bristo, who uses a wheelchair, says that

may only be proof of a poor connec-

by the Illinois Department of Human

wheelchair testers are often able to

tion. Testing investigations, Freiberg

Rights in 2007 to test 914 W. Hubbard

detect subtle design issues simply by

contends, must always consider how the

Inc. for accessibility. The organization

interacting with the space.61 In Illinois,

evidence will stand in court.57

dispatched a tester using a 24-inch

for example, most ramps are not al-

wheelchair. The tester was unable to

lowed to have a slope exceeding a 1:12

Once inside the building, Access Living’s

access various areas of the four units he

ratio.62 A wheelchair user intuitively

testers investigate its design and acces-

tested. The doorway to the master bed-

knows the feeling of a compliant ramp

sibility issues.58 The 1988 amendments to

room was too narrow on two units and

and can immediately recognize a slope

the Fair Housing Act state that buildings

formed a sharp angle with the hallway,

that is too steep. In most cases, Access

built after 1991 that have four or more

making turning difficult. In three units, Living prefers to use individuals with 23

Yolanda Wright

Access Living and pro bono counsel Katten Muchin Rosenman helped secure necessary approvals under the Fair Housing Act to install the lift above.

disabilities instead of proxy testers

inconsistent with its philosophy that people Access Living’s unique position also

— nondisabled individuals who present

with disabilities should be at the forefront

comes with unique responsibilities

themselves as having a disability or

of efforts to combat discrimination. Bristo when implementing testing. As a dis-individuals who inquire into housing

feels that using proxies reinforces the

ability rights organization, Access Living

on behalf of a relative with a disability.63

negative stereotype that individuals with

believes that it is obligated to employ

Proxy testers, says Bristo, cannot engage

disabilities are unable to function inde-

persons with disabilities whenever pos-

with a space in the same way as a person

pendently in everyday society.66

sible. Therefore, Walden states, Access

with a disability. Because such testers

Living must provide reasonable accom-

may overlook a potentially discriminatory

Benefits of Fair Housing

modations to its testers to complete

issue, she cautions against their use.64

and Disability Advocacy

their jobs. For example, individuals

By straddling the worlds of fair housing

with visual impairments may need

One possible use of proxy testers

and disability advocacy, Access Living

forms that work well with screen read-

may be in investigations into housing

is able to enforce antidiscrimination

ers to complete their tests. People with

discrimination against individuals with

laws while maintaining fidelity to its

limited use of their hands may need a

mental disabilities. For paired testing

core mission. Because it is a disability

dictation service to complete their test

to work properly, testers need to casually

rights organization staffed largely by in-

reports. A deaf tester may need a sign

signal to the housing provider that

dividuals with disabilities, Access Living

language interpreter to communicate

they possess the disability being tested.

understands the needs of the disabled

with a landlord or agent.68

Because mental disabilities are often

community, speaks the same language,

invisible, testers may have difficulty

and is fully comfortable working with

In its multifaceted effort to expand the

disclosing their disabilities in a way that

testers with disabilities. These advantages housing options available to individuals does not tip off the housing provider

allow Access Living to draw on creative

with disabilities, Access Living uses test-

that a fair housing test is underway.65

solutions from the disabled community.

ing evidence to address wider change.

Although some FHOs address this chal-

For example, Access Living is working to

Providing redress for a single victim of

lenge by using proxy testers who claim to

have accessible design added to Chicago’s discrimination is beneficial, but when be seeking housing on behalf of a friend

building code to eliminate the potential

appropriate, Access Living also looks

or relative with a mental disability, Access

for certain fair housing violations before

to further its mission by modifying

Living believes that using proxies is

construction even begins.67

the habits of housing providers.

24

Accomplishing this goal means that

with disabilities collect the best evidence

victims are unaware of subtle forms

testing evidence is not always used to

during disability discrimination cases

of discrimination, resulting in neither

file a complaint. Instead, in specific,

because of their intuitive knowledge.

a complaint nor an investigation. Only

limited situations, Access Living may

by proactively investigating discrimina-

opt for training when the evidence

Tisdale and Freiberg argue that testing is

tion, say Tisdale and Freiberg, can

warrants it, pushing housing providers

most effective when it is implemented as

FHOs tackle the problem holistically

to voluntarily correct their policies to

a part of an investigation that is proactive-

and curtail widespread abuses. When

create systematic change.69

ly initiated and systemic in scope and

FHOs work in concert, as MMFHC did

remedies. These experts believe that the

with several FHOs to investigate insur-

Conclusion

current complaint-based enforcement

ance redlining, testing can be used to

In Milwaukee, Spokane, and Chicago,

paradigm misses most discrimination

change the behavior of housing provid-

housing discrimination takes many

occurring in the housing market. Many

ers, expanding housing choice for all.

different forms, necessitating a unique

approach to each testing investigation.

Wertheim and Freiberg emphasize the

need to remain flexible and embrace a

variety of testing structures customized

for a specific investigation. By shrewdly

applying different testing structures,

MMFHC, NWFHA, and Access Living

are able to provide redress to victims

of discrimination. Although the paired

test remains the staple investigative

method, MMFHC was also successful at

using decoy testers to draw out a

recalcitrant landlord in Milwaukee.

In eastern Washington, NWFHA used

single-person tests to effectively identify

mortgage rescue scams. These different

testing structures are enhanced, Ho-

chendoner and Freiberg have observed,

when the investigation incorporates

available data sources. HMDA lend-

ing data allowed NWFHA to target

lenders with the poorest records of

serving members of protected classes.

Demographic data, when used in con-

junction with testing, focused FHJC’s

investigation on the most afflicted parts

of its service area, stretching scarce

enforcement dollars and increasing the

efficiency of its operation.

Training is fundamental because, as

Freiberg notes, all testers are also po-

tential witnesses. If a testing case goes

to trial, the credibility and objectivity of

the testers will be scrutinized just as they

are for other fact witnesses. MMFHC,

NWFHA, and Access Living equip

their testers to objectively document

appropriate evidence during investiga-

tions. Using the person most suited to a

specific situation is also important. Ac-

Fair housing organizations work to ensure that families with children are not excluded from the home of cess Living has learned that individuals

their choice.

25

21 Ibid; Interview with Fred Freiberg; Interview with

42 Turner et al. 2002, 34–6, 9; Apgar and Calder, 9.

Carla Wertheim.

43

1 Fred Freiberg. 2009. “A Test of Our Fairness, ” The Interview with Marley Hochendoner; Interview with

Urban Lawyer

22

41:2, 242–3.

Tisdale 2008.

Jessica Schultz-Leyk.

23 Olatunde Johnson. 2011. “The Last Plank: Rethinking

44 Turner and Skidmore, 17, 33.

2 John Obee. 2009. “The Importance of Testing Evi-

Public and Private Power to Advance Fair Housing, ”

45

dence in Housing Discrimination Sales Transactions:

Interview with Marley Hochendoner.

University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law

Two Case Studies,” The Urban Lawyer 41:2, 309.

46 Ibid.

13:5, 1195, 1201–2; Freiberg 2009, 242; Robert Mark

3 Liam Garland. 2009. “Reflections on Housing Rights

47

Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson. 2012. “The Four

Illinois Department of Human Rights. 2013. “2012

Center v Krug, ” The Urban Lawyer 41:2, 249; Kenneth

Horsemen of the Fair Housing Apocalypse: A Critique

Annual Report,” 24.

Temkin, Tracy McCracken, and Veralee Liban. 2011.

of Fair Housing Policy in the USA,” Critical Sociology 48 Interview with Marca Bristo, 9 April 2014.

“Study of the Fair Housing Initiatives Program,” U.S.

38:1, 125; Garland, 249.

49 From 2008–2011, discrimination based on disability

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

24 Interview with William Tisdale; Tisdale 2008.

was the most commonly filed complaint with HUD

53, 57.

25 Tisdale 2008; William Tisdale and Carla Wertheim.

and FHAPs, see U. S. Department of Housing and

4 “Fair Housing Testing Program,” U.S. Department of

2003. “Giving Back to the Future: Citizen Involve-

Urban Development. 2011. “Annual Report on Fair

Justice website (www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/hous-

Housing: Fiscal Year 2011,” 19; Access Living of Metro-

ing_testing.php). Accessed 21 April 2014. Examples of

ment and Community Stabilization in Milwaukee,” in

politan Chicago. “Civil Rights and Legal Work.” Access

local testing programs include the city of Alexandria,

Organization Access to Credit: Advocacy And The Democ-

Living was the only Center for Independent Living

Virginia and Seattle, Washington. Iowa and Delaware

ratization, ed. Gregory Squires, Philadelphia: Temple

to receive FHIP funding in 2012. U.S. Department

are two states that utilize testing to uncover discrimi-

University Press, 45–8.

of Housing and Urban Development. 2012. “FY 2012

nation.

26 Gregory Squires, Sally O’Connor, and Josh Silver.

FHIP Award Blurbs.”

5 Joel Rast. 2010. “The Economic State of Milwaukee,

2000. “The Unavailability of Information on Insurance

50 Interview with Ken Walden, 10 April 2014.

1990–2008,” The Center for Economic Development

Unavailability: Insurance Redlining and the Absence

51 Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 2013. “Remov-

at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee; John R.

of Geocoded Disclosure Data, ” Annie E Casey Founda-

ing Barriers: Access Living 2013 Annual Report;”

Logan and Brian J. Stults. 2011. “The Persistence of

tion, 7–9.

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 2011. “Access

Segregation in the Metropolis: New Findings from

27 Tisdale and Wertheim, 47–8; Squires et al., 9–10.

Living’s Fair Housing Work, ” 7 September press release.

the 2010 Census,” Census Brief prepared for Project

28 Carla Wertheim. 1994. “Availability of insurance in

52

US2010, 6.

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 2002. “Hous-

Milwaukee, Wisconsin: field hearing before the Sub-

ing Rights Of People With Disabilities,” 12 and “Fair

6 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commis-

committee on Consumer Credit and Insurance of the

Housing Coordinator pursues her passion for social

sion. 2013. “A Regional Housing Plan for Southeast-

Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs,

justice,” 26 April 2013. U.S. Department of Housing

ern Wisconsin: 2035, ” 330–3.

House of Representatives, ” 4 January.

and Urban Development. 2012. “FY 2012 FHIP Award

7 United States v. State of Wisconsin. 1975. 395 F.Supp.

29 Interview with Fred Freiberg; Fair Housing Justice

Blurbs.”

732; “Mission and History,” Metropolitan Milwaukee

Center. 2012. “Creating Places Where All Are Wel-

53 Interview with Jamie Wichman, 10 April 2014; Access

Fair Housing Council website (www.fairhousingwis-

come: A Progress Report, ” 5.

Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 2013. “Fair Housing

consin.com/aboutus.html). Accessed 21 April 2014.

30 Daniel Lindsey, Diane E. Thompson, Alys Cohen, and

Coordinator pursues her passion for social justice.”

8 “Program and Service,” Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair

Odette Williamson. 2012. “Why Responsible Mortgage

54 Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Zuric Development

Housing Council website (www.fairhousingwisconsin.

Lending Is a Fair Housing Issue, ” National Consumer Inc, et al. 2006. 1:06-cv-05660 Complaint

com/aboutus.html). Accessed 21 April 2014.

Law Center, 7; Robert G. Schwemm and Jeffrey L.

55 Margery Austin Turner, Carla Herbig, Deborah Kaye,

9 William Tisdale. 1999. “Fair Housing Strategies for

Taren. 2005. “Discretionary Pricing, Mortgage Dis-

Julie Fenderson, and Diane Levy. 2005. Discrimination

the Future: A Balanced Approach,” Cityscape: A Journal

crimination, and the Fair Housing Act, ” Harvard Civil

Against Persons with Disabilities: Barriers at Every Step,

of Policy Development and Research 4:3, 149.

Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 45, 386–7, 418;

National Fair Housing Alliance. 2013. “Modernizing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

10 William Tisdale. 2008. “Still Separate and Unequal:

the Fair Housing Act for the 21st Century: 2013 Fair

ment, 9–11.

The State of Fair Housing in America, ” Testimony

Housing Trends Report,” 33.

56 Interview with Ken Walden; “What’s a TTY? What’s

before the National Commission on Fair Housing

a TDD? What’s a relay system?” Gallaudet University

Council and Equal Opportunity, 15 July.

31 Interview with Marley Hochendoner, 15 April 2014;

website (www.gallaudet.edu/dpn_home/tty_relays_

Northwest Fair Housing Alliance. 2011. “Northwest

11 Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. 2012.

and_closed_captions.html). Accessed 21 April 2014.

Fair Housing Alliance Awarded 18-month $325,000

“Annual Report 2012;” “Fair Housing Rights,” Met-

U.S. Dept. of HUD Fair Housing Organization Initia-

57 Interview with Jamie Wichman; Interview with Fred

ropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council website

Freiberg; Sara Pratt, Carla Herbig, Diane Levy, Julie

(www.fairhousingwisconsin.com/housingrights.html).

tive (FHOI) Mortgage Rescue Component (MRC)

Fenderson, and Margery Austin Turner. 2005. “Dis-

Accessed 21 April 2014.

Grant.” 5 October press release.

crimination Against Persons with Disabilities: Testing

32 Interview with Marley Hochendoner; Northwest Fair

12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Guidance for Practitioners, ” U.S. Department of Hous-

ment. 2013. “HUD Awards Nearly $600,000 To

Housing Alliance 2013.

ing and Urban Development, 25.

Wisconsin to Fight Housing Discrimination, ” 25

33 Margery Austin Turner, Fred Freiberg, Erin Godfrey,

58 Access Living if Metropolitan Chicago. 2011. “Access

September press release; Metropolitan Milwaukee

Carla Herbig, Diane K. Levy, and Robin R. Smith.

Living’s Fair Housing Work,” 7 September press

Fair Housing Council 2012.

2002. “All Other Things Being Equal: A Paired Test-

release.

13 Interview with Carla Wertheim, 10 April 2014.

ing Study of Mortgage Lending Institutions,” 4, 38;

59

Lindsey et al., 7–9; Margery Austin Turner and Felicity

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago. 2007. “Hous-

14 Temkin et al., xi, 53.

Skidmore. 1999. “Introduction, Summary, and Recom-

ing Discrimination Against People with Disabilities

15 Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council,

mendations” in Mortgage Lending Discrimination: A

Legal Outline. ”

“Annual Report 2012,” 4–5.

Review of Existing Evidence Lending Discrimination, The

60 United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

16 Interview with Fred Freiberg.

Urban Institute, 17, 31–3.

ment v. Hector Castillo Architects Inc. et al. 2008. 05-09-

0142-8 Charge of Discrimination; U.S. Department

17 Avern Cohn. 2009. “Fair Housing Testing, ” The Urban 34 Interview with Jessica Schultz-Seyk, 10 April 2014.

of Housing and Urban Development. 2011. “Annual

Lawyer 41:2, 274.

35 Northwest Fair Housing Alliance 2013.

Report on Fair Housing: Fiscal Year 2011. ”

18 Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council 2012;

36 William C. Apgar and Allegra Calder. 2005. “The Dual

61 Interview with Marca Bristo.

United States of America v. Geneva Terrace Apartments,

Mortgage Market: The Persistence of Discrimination

Inc. et al. 2012. 3:11-cv-00734-; United States of America

62

in Mortgage Lending, ” in The Geography of Opportunity: State of Illinois Capital Development Board. 1997.

v. Geneva Terrace Apartments, Inc. et al. 2012. 3:11-cv-

Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America

“Illinois Accessibility Code,” 37.

, ed.

00734-wmc; U.S. Department of Justice. 2012. “Jus-

Xavier de Souza Briggs, 1, 2.

63 Interview with Marca Bristo; Pratt et al., 22.

tice Department Settles Lawsuit Against Wisconsin

37 Northwest Fair Housing Alliance 2013; Interview with

64 Interview with Marca Bristo.

Landlord and Former Manager for Discriminating on

Jessica Schultz-Leyk.

65 Pratt et al., 23; Turner et al. 2005, 8.

the Basis of Race, ” 29 November press release.

38 Interview with Jessica Schultz-Leyk.

66 Interview with Marca Bristo.

19 National Fair Housing Alliance. 2009. “Fair Housing

Enforcement: Time for a Change,” 16–7; Interview 39 Northwest Fair Housing Alliance 2013.

67 Interview with Ken Walden.

with Fred Freiberg.

40 Turner et al. 2002, 34–6, 9.

68 Ibid; Pratt et al., 38.

20 Interview with William Tisdale, 10 April 2014.

41 Interview with Jessica Schultz-Leyk.

69 Interview with Ken Walden.

26

Additional Resources

n Knocking on the Door: The Federal Govern-

www.prrac.org/pdf/HousingEducationRe

features several stories on housing segregation

ment’s Attempt to Desegregate the Suburbs

port-October2011.pdf.

and discrimination, both past and present.

(2006), by Christopher Bonastia, documents

www.propublica.org/series/segregation-now.

HUD’s early efforts under Secretary George

n “Expanding Housing Opportunities Through

Romney to affirmatively implement the Fair

Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons From Two Coun-

n HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportu-

Housing Act to reduce segregation.

ties” (2012), by researchers from the Urban

nity assists people who believe that they are vic-

press.princeton.edu/titles/8205.html.

Institute and the University of Maryland at

tims of housing discrimination. For information on

College Park, examines the effectiveness of

filing a complaint or contacting a local fair housing

n Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Afford-

two inclusionary zoning strategies for increasing

group, visit www.hud.gov/offices/fheo.

able Housing and Social Mobility in an American

the supply of affordable housing and furthering

Suburb (2013), by Douglas S. Massey et al.,

other housing goals. www.huduser.org/portal/

n The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA)

evaluates the consequences of the placement

publications/affhsg/hud_496.html.

hosts a range of relevant resources, including

of an affordable housing development in Mount

a tool for locating local fair housing organiza-

Laurel, New Jersey as required by a landmark

n “Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the

tions. NFHA publishes an annual report that

state Supreme Court ruling.

Fair Housing Act” (1999), a special issue of

documents trends in the most recent housing

press.princeton.edu/titles/10024.html.

Cityscape, contains articles reflecting on the

discrimination data from HUD and private fair

history of the Fair Housing Act, examining its

housing groups and examines current fair hous-

n Fragile Rights Within Cities: Government,

implementation, and proposing recommenda-

ing policy issues. www.nationalfairhousing.org/.

Housing, and Fairness (2006), edited by John

tions for policy improvements and future ac-

Goering, contains essays on housing discrimi-

tions. www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/

n “Symposium on Fair Housing Testing” (2009),

nation and housing discrimination research,

vol4num3/index.html.

in The Urban Lawyer, contains a collection of

segregation and integration, and fair housing

articles on the challenges and strengths as-

enforcement policies and programs.

n The Louis L. Biro Law Library at John Marshall

sociated with fair housing testing. The articles

rowman.com/ISBN/9780742547353.

Law School hosts a bibliography of fair housing

are based on presentations from a conference

resources and publications. libraryguides.jmls.

on fair housing testing held at Wayne State

n The Geography of Opportunity: Race and

edu/content.php?pid=184324&sid=1548968.

University Law School in 2008. www.american-

Housing Choice in Metropolitan America (2005),

bar.org/publications/urban_lawyer_home/

edited by Xavier de Souza Briggs, is a collection n Fair Housing Act Design Manual: A Manual to

urban_lawyer_archive/41_2abst.html.

of essays that address ways to ensure equal

Assist Designers and Builders in Meeting the

opportunity for an increasingly diverse popula-

Accessibility Requirements of the Fair Housing

n A Matter of Place (2014), jointly produced by

tion in the context of historic discrimination and

Act (1998), by the Office of Fair Housing and

the Fair Housing Justice Center and Kavanagh

persistent segregation. brookings.edu/re-

Equal Opportunity and the Office of Housing at

Productions, is a documentary that tells the sto-

search/books/2005/geographyofopportunity.

HUD, provides clear and comprehensive guid-

ries of people who faced housing discrimination

ance regarding the accessibility obligations of

in present-day New York in the context of the

n “Concentration of Poverty in the New Millen-

builders under the Fair Housing Act.

nation’s history of racial residential segregation.

nium: Changes in Prevalence, Composition,

www.huduser.org/publications/PDF/

www.fairhousingjustice.org/resources/film/.

and Location of High Poverty Neighborhoods”

FAIRHOUSING/fairfull.pdf.

(2013), by Paul A. Jargowsky, summarizes the

n The Equality of Opportunity Project, a study

changes in the geography and demographics of

n Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST is a HUD-

of intergenerational mobility in the United

concentrated poverty, including racial changes,

supported initiative that provides Fair Housing

States, finds significant correlation between

and concludes with a discussion of the conse-

Act construction and design information and

intergenerational mobility and residential and

quences of concentrated poverty.

technical support through instruction, online

economic segregation. www.equality-of-op-

tcf.org/assets/downloads/Concentration_of_

resources, and a toll-free information line.

portunity.org/.

Poverty_in_the_New_Millennium.pdf.

www.fairhousingfirst.org/.

n “Improving Equality of Opportunity in America:

n Housing Discrimination: Law and Litigation

New Evidence and Policy Lessons” (2014),

n “Finding Common Ground: Coordinating Hous-

ing and Education Policy to Promote Integra-

(2013), by Robert Schwemm, discusses the

a lecture by Harvard University professor of

tion” (2011), by the Poverty and Race Research

history of fair housing law and examines impor-

economics Raj Chetty, discusses how certain

Action Council, advocates moving beyond a

tant past and recent cases.

charactersitics of a community can affect a

siloed approach to housing and education policy

legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/

child’s chances for future income mobility.

by thinking collaboratively about the effect one

law-products/Treatises/Housing-Discrimina-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l--6CzrJ4A.

has on the other, with the goal of fostering inclu-

tion-Law-and-Litigation/p/100027959.

For additional resources archive, go to

sive, integrated schools and communities.

n Segregation Now: Investigating America’s Racial

www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/addi-

Divide is a ProPublica investigative series that

tional_resources_2014.html.

Evidence Matters

Discuss this issue on the

Evidence Matters Forum at

Rachelle Levitt: Editor

www.huduser.org/forums.

Keith Fudge: Managing Editor

You can subscribe to

Evidence Matters at

Authors: Keith Fudge (HUD)

and Sage Computing staff

www.huduser.org/

portal/evidence.html.

27

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

PRESORTED

HUD USER

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

P.O. Box 23268

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Washington, DC 20026—3268

HUD

PERMIT NO. G—795

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

www.hud.gov/policy n 800.245.2691

Table of Contents

— Katherine M. O’Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

— Rachelle Levitt,

—