FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

FOR RESEARCH ON 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN 

RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
HUD published two reports based on the 2014 pilot study on housing discrimination against families with children in 

rental housing markets: a report on the findings of the pilot study and this essay on alternative approaches to studying 

and monitoring housing discrimination in the future. The reports are available from HUDUSER.gov.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

FOR RESEARCH ON 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN 

RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Robert Santos

Margery Austin Turner

Laudan Aron

Brent Howell

Urban Institute

December 2016
Acknowledgments

The authors thank Urban Institute researchers Doug Wissoker 

and Claudia Aranda for their cogent commentary and assistance 

on earlier drafts.

They also thank the individuals who participated in the second 

convening of the pilot study’s expert panel. Their input has helped 

shape the methods and future research required to examine 

discrimination against families with children in rental markets. 

We are grateful for their participation. The panel members 

(and their affiliations at the time of the pilot study) were David 

Banks (Duke University), Burt Barnow (George Washington 

University), Camille Charles (University of Pennsylvania), Ingrid 

Gould Ellen (New York University), Frances Espinoza (North 

Texas Fair Housing), George Galster (Wayne State University), 

Richard Sander (University of California, Los Angeles), Susan 

Scovill (Scovill Consulting), and Marian Siegel (Housing Counseling Services, Inc.).

The authors also express their appreciation to Elizabeth Rudd, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose 

guidance and commentary greatly influenced this essay.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS iii

Preface

Equal access to housing is a critical element of access to opportunity in America. To help monitor housing discrimination and 

enforce fair housing laws, the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) has sponsored several studies measuring housing discrimination based on race or ethnicity using 

paired-testing methods. In these studies, two individuals—one 

White and one African-American (or Hispanic or Asian)—are 

sent to pose as equally qualified homeseekers. Testers keep 

track of treatment indicators, such as whether they are told a 

unit is available and whether they can see the unit. Systematic 

differences across many tests provide direct evidence of 

discrimination.

In 2013, HUD sponsored the first large-scale paired-testing 

study of discrimination against families with children in rental 

housing markets. Since 1988, the Fair Housing Act has prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of 

dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

disability, or presence of children (including pregnancy), but, 

until now, no large, paired-testing studies of familial status 

based housing discrimination have been conducted. Reported 

in Discrimination Against Families With Children in Rental Housing 

Markets: Findings of the Pilot Study, the results show that families 

with children are equally likely to be shown units, but families 

with children are shown fewer units than families without 

children. These results are similar to the most recent national 

study on racial and ethnic discrimination in housing, reported 

in Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 

2012 ̧ which also shows little or no evidence of old-fashioned 

“door slamming.”

From these recent studies have surfaced questions about rental 

housing markets that cannot be answered by paired-testing 

methods. In this essay, Future Directions for Research on Discrimination Against Families With Children in Rental Housing Markets, 

the authors articulate several questions about how families fare 

in rental housing markets that cannot be answered using conventional paired-testing methods, and they propose alternative 

research approaches. The questions are specified for families 

but also apply to other protected classes. For instance, “Do 

marginally qualified renter families experience more frequent 

discrimination than those who are well qualified?” Although 

rooted in the pilot study on familial status discrimination, the 

puzzles and possible solutions discussed in this thoughtful 

essay are relevant to the future study of all kinds of housing 

discrimination.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS iv

Contents

Introduction........................................................................... 1

Changes in Paired-Testing Study Design ................................ 3

Analysis of Local Residential Occupancy Standards................ 5

Discrimination at Later Stages of Renting ............................... 6

Interviews of Housing Providers............................................. 7

Large-Scale Survey of Renters................................................. 8

Better Understanding of Contemporary Housing Markets....... 9

References............................................................................ 10
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 1

Introduction

The 1968 federal Fair Housing Act was enacted to combat discrimination against homeseekers by private real estate agents, 

rental property owners, and others. The legislation was amended 

by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to extend protections to families with children and persons with disabilities. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) is responsible for enforcing the Fair Housing Act and 

monitoring discrimination against protected classes. Since 

1977, HUD has monitored the national incidence of racial and 

ethnic discrimination in rental and sales housing markets using 

rigorous paired-testing studies1 conducted (roughly) decennially. Until now, however, no rigorous research has measured 

the incidence of discrimination against families with children.2

In 2013, HUD commissioned the Urban Institute to adapt 

paired-testing methods to measure discrimination against 

families with children seeking rental housing. The Urban Institute designed a pilot paired-testing study and conducted 619 

in-person tests across three metropolitan areas.3 The central 

objectives of this pilot study were to assess the feasibility of 

paired-testing research for measuring discrimination based on 

family status; explore variations in discrimination by family 

characteristics such as race, marital status, and family size; and 

investigate how best to measure the incidence and forms of 

discrimination against families with children nationwide.

The pilot study found no evidence of outright exclusion of 

families with children from available rental housing. When 

well-qualified homeseekers with children contacted rental 

housing providers to inquire about recently advertised homes 

and apartments, those with children were as likely as comparably 

qualified homeseekers without children to get an appointment 

and learn about at least one available housing unit. The pilot 

study did find that some rental agents show families with children slightly fewer units than comparably qualified childless 

renters and steer them toward larger units with higher rents. 

This treatment may constrain families’ choices and increase their 

housing costs. These findings are similar to the latest pairedtesting estimates of discrimination against minority homeseekers, 

which show little or no evidence of the “door slamming” discrimination of the past but find that African-American, Hispanic, 

and Asian homeseekers learn about fewer housing units than 

comparably qualified White homeseekers.4

Other family characteristics, including race/ethnicity, number 

of children, age and sex of children, marital status, and housing 

unit size were factored into the research design to examine 

potential variations in discriminatory behavior. The pilot study 

revealed variation in discriminatory behavior by landlords for 

only two of these factors. First, as compared with one-child 

families, two-child families were shown units with slightly higher 

rents and were shown slightly fewer units. Second, when comparing the experience of renters with and without children, the 

pilot study indicated greater differences for paired tests involving 

one-bedroom tests than those involving two- or three-bedroom 

tests for four outcomes: (1) ability to obtain any information 

over the phone about an advertised unit, (2) being told that 

any unit is available, (3) being told that the requested-size unit 

is available, and (4) number of available units of the requested 

size.5 The pilot study found no evidence, however, that a 

family’s race or ethnicity, marital status, or the age or gender 

of the children influence the likelihood of experiencing familial 

status discrimination.6

The results of the pilot study—and those of the most recent 

national paired-testing study of discrimination against minority 

homeseekers—suggest that protected classes of homeseekers 

are no longer blatantly denied access to available housing. 

That finding does not mean, however, that housing discrimination has been entirely eliminated. Complaints of housing 

1

 In a paired test, two people with similar profiles (for example, age, sex, or marital status) pose as equally qualified homeseekers, except that one has children and 

the other does not. Both inquire about available homes. Testers independently record the treatment they receive, including information about all units recommended 

and shown. The results across many paired tests are then compared to assess how the treatment experienced by testers with children differs from that of testers 

without children, thus measuring the incidence and forms of discrimination.

2

 HUD enforcement activities to protect families with children against discrimination have been ongoing since passage of the 1988 amendment.

3

 For complete details on the pilot study methodology, see Aron et al. (2016).

4

 See Turner et al. (2013).

5

 Note that discriminatory treatment against families with children can be illegal, even if the differences are minimal.

6

 Note that reanalysis of the large sample of paired tests from the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study found no evidence that discrimination based on race or 

ethnicity was greater for families with children than for childless homeseekers.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 2

discrimination—including discrimination against families 

with children—continue to be filed with and investigated by 

HUD,7 and other research indicates that families with children 

face serious challenges finding affordable rental housing in 

safe and opportunity-rich neighborhoods.8 Many fair housing 

advocates and practitioners suggest that discrimination today 

may take different forms or may occur at different stages in the 

homeseeking process. If so, effectively measuring the incidence 

of discrimination in 21st century housing markets may require 

alternative research strategies, possibly including, but not 

limited to, paired testing.

To be more specific, the pilot study uncovered six unanswered 

questions about the possible persistence of discrimination 

against families with children.

1. Do marginally qualified renter families with children 

experience more frequent discrimination than those who 

are well qualified?

2. Do the characteristics of mover families with children 

make them more likely to experience discrimination than 

the average renter family with children?

3. How does the treatment of families with children compare 

with that of their most likely competitors for rental housing?

4. Do local occupancy standards limit rental housing options 

for families with children, and are rental housing providers 

acting on misinformation about occupancy standards?

5. To what extent—and under what circumstances—do renters 

with children experience unfavorable treatment at later 

stages in the renting process?

6. What attitudes and perceptions on the part of rental 

housing providers may cause or contribute to unfavorable 

treatment of families with children?

Replicating the pilot study design in a large (and costly) national 

paired-testing study of discrimination against families with children would not effectively answer these questions and probably 

would not provide new or useful information to guide fair housing 

policy and enforcement. Therefore, this essay suggests alternative research strategies, including possible adaptations to pairedtesting study design; an analysis of local occupancy standards 

and how they are applied by housing providers; exploratory 

analyses of discrimination at later stages of renting; interviews 

of housing providers to understand their knowledge, attitudes, 

and practices; and a large-scale survey of renters. The table that 

follows summarizes the potential of these approaches to answer 

the outstanding questions about different forms of discrimination 

against families with children in today’s rental housing market.

Modified 

Paired-Testing 

Design

Analysis of 

Occupancy 

Standards

Analysis of 

Discrimination 

Complaints

Housing 

Provider

Focus Groups

Large-Scale 

Survey of 

Renters

Do marginally qualified renter families with children experience 

more frequent discrimination than those who are well qualified?

X X*

Do characteristics of mover families with children make them 

more likely to experience discrimination than the average renter 

family with children?

X X*

How does the treatment of families with children compare with 

that of their most likely competitors for rental housing?

X X

Do local occupancy standards limit rental housing options for 

families with children, and are rental housing providers acting 

on misinformation about occupancy standards?

X X

To what extent—and under what circumstances—do renters with 

children experience unfavorable treatment at later stages in the 

renting process?

X X

What attitudes and perceptions on the part of rental housing 

providers may cause or contribute to unfavorable treatment of 

families with children?

X

* Strictly speaking, surveys cannot reliably measure the incidence of discrimination, but rather they measure differences in the incidence of negative treatment reported 

by various groups of households.

7

 In 2014, 784 family status rental housing discrimination claims were filed for HUD processing, representing roughly 1 in 7 of all rental discrimination cases for that 

year. Source: HUD Title Eight Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) data system.

8

 See Aron et al. (2016) for a review of this research.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 3

Changes in Paired-Testing Study Design

The pilot paired-testing study was carefully designed to produce 

credible estimates of the incidence of discrimination against 

renters with children. Because the pilot study testing protocols 

assigned characteristics to testers that made them financially 

“well qualified” for the house or apartment they were seeking 

to rent, the results may understate the incidence of discrimination that the average family faces in today’s rental markets. To 

be more specific, testers were assigned incomes high enough 

to ensure that their rent would be affordable (using the conventional standard that rent should not be greater than 30 percent 

of one’s income), excellent credit, and stable rental and employment histories. Analysis of American Housing Survey (AHS) data, 

however, reveals that more than 60 percent of renter families 

have unaffordable housing cost burdens (meaning they exceed 

30 percent of income) and 20 percent have extreme cost burdens 

(with costs that exceed 50 percent of income).

It is possible that discrimination against families with children 

is more prevalent (or takes different forms) when they are less 

than fully qualified financially. Reanalysis of the pilot study data 

indicate that, in most tests, housing providers did not inquire 

about the homeseekers’ income and that the incidence of discrimination was not greater among tests in which the provider 

did inquire. Nonetheless, a paired-testing study that assigned 

financial characteristics to make testers marginally qualified and, 

therefore, more comparable with an average renter household 

might yield different estimates of discrimination against families 

with children in the rental market. In addition, these estimates 

would better reflect the treatment families actually experience.

One possible approach would be to assign incomes to tester 

pairs that reflect the distribution of rental housing cost burdens 

that families with children actually face. This distribution could 

be obtained from the most recent American Community Survey 

(ACS, 2010) or from AHS (2011). Another way to create more 

realistic tester profiles would be to assign more marginal or 

typical characteristics related to credit and employment in 

addition to income. Using ACS or other national data to inform 

the proportions, a share of testers could mention blemished 

credit and irregular employment during their inquiries about 

unit availability. Exploring the variation in outcomes by renter 

financial status could provide a better understanding of how different financial attributes affect the incidence of discrimination.

Another issue to consider when assigning testers’ financial characteristics is housing stability. Families seeking rental housing 

vary regarding the length of time they have lived at the same 

address before moving and their frequency of moves. Frequent 

movers interact with housing providers at a higher rate than 

their more stable renter counterparts. A paired-testing study 

design that reflects the characteristics of overall renter household 

distributions at a point in time, therefore, will in effect overrepresent the characteristics of stable renters relative to their 

presence among active homeseekers. Thus, the characteristics of 

renter families who are frequent movers (or, as a proxy, recent 

movers) could be used as the basis for assigning income and 

other attributes to testers to produce estimates of discrimination 

against a typical mover (rather than against a well-qualified 

rental homeseeker).9

Modifying paired-testing protocols to make testers less than 

fully qualified poses two significant challenges. First, testers 

would have to be trained to consistently and credibly disclose 

their financial status during their interaction with the housing 

provider. Second, because both testers in each pair would be 

only marginally qualified as renters, they might both immediately 

be denied housing in a substantial share of tests. This approach 

would reduce the number of tests in which differences in treatment between families with children and homeseekers without 

children could be observed, making it more difficult to produce 

statistically reliable estimates of discrimination. Before attempting to implement this strategy in a large-scale testing study, we 

recommend testing the approach rigorously with an exploratory 

or pilot study to ensure that it is feasible and that it yields new 

information about patterns of discriminatory treatment.

A more radical departure from the pilot study design would involve the characteristics of the comparison (or control) testers. 

The standard approach calls for two testers assigned identical 

characteristics, in which one tester has a child (or children) and 

the other has no children. Although methodologically optimal 

for detecting discriminatory treatment of comparably qualified 

homeseekers, it may not reflect the types of childless households 

with whom families actually compete in the rental market. 

To illustrate, suppose that the typical renter inquiring about a 

one-bedroom unit is a childless adult who can easily afford the 

advertised rent. Recall that significantly more than one-half of 

9

 A renter survey, discussed further in a following section, could potentially provide substantial new information about the characteristics and experiences of different 

groups of family renters, including frequent and recent movers.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 4

renter families with children face unaffordable rent burdens. 

When such a family inquires about a unit, its competition 

might be a childless household in a much more favorable 

financial situation. Modifying the design of a paired-testing 

study to compare the treatment of renter families with the 

treatment of the homeseekers with whom they typically compete 

might shed some light on the experience of families with children 

in the rental market, but it would not provide information about 

the role of discriminatory treatment by housing providers.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 5

Analysis of Local Residential Occupancy Standards

The pilot study raised the possibility that local housing occupancy standards—and particularly how they are interpreted 

or acted on by rental housing providers—may limit housing 

options for families with children. To be more specific, the 

pilot study results reveal evidence of steering, whereby housing 

providers showed families with children larger units (with 

correspondingly higher rents) than their childless counterparts. 

This form of differential treatment was most prevalent when 

testers inquired about one-bedroom units, suggesting that 

housing providers might be concerned about local occupancy 

standards. Residential occupancy standards, which are enacted 

and enforced locally, are often characterized as prohibiting more 

than two people per bedroom, although in fact they generally 

are more complex and nuanced. Landlords may be wary of 

renting to households that would exceed two people per bedroom, even in circumstances that would be legal under local 

ordinances.10 This observation raises the question of whether 

residential occupancy standards—or providers’ understanding 

of them—may play a role in discrimination against families 

with children.

To find out how occupancy standards affect renter families, 

information could be compiled on the specific provisions of 

ordinances in a sample of jurisdictions, combined with the 

terms of fair housing complaints filed by families with children 

from the sampled jurisdictions and data on the perceptions of 

local housing providers. To assess housing providers’ understanding and interpretation of local occupancy standards, we 

would recommend a qualitative approach, including indepth 

interviews with leaders of local apartment owners associations, 

content analysis of informational and training materials provided 

by local associations, and focus groups with different types of 

rental housing owners and managers, all aimed at understanding how housing providers understand and apply local occupancy 

standards. Such a study could reveal whether occupancy standards do indeed explain the pilot study results and could inform 

landlord and tenant education initiatives and also the development and dissemination of model occupancy standards.

10 AHS data reveal that families with one or more children rent about 10 percent of studio and one-bedroom units.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 6

Discrimination at Later Stages of Renting

Paired testing focuses on the initial interaction between a homeseeker and a housing provider and therefore cannot observe 

discrimination if it happens at later stages. For example, a 

housing provider who provides equal information to families 

with children and families without children when they initially 

inquire about advertised units might subsequently deny the 

applications to rent or impose unfavorable requirements in the 

lease agreement to families with children. In another example, 

after a family with children secures a rental unit, a landlord 

might impose discriminatory restrictions on access to common 

areas and facilities. Analysis of fair housing complaints filed 

with HUD from 2000 to 2014 indicates that, on average, 26 

percent involve claims of discriminatory advertisements; 46 percent involve claims of refusal to rent; and 55 percent involve 

discriminatory terms, conditions, and privileges.11 Analysis of 

a sample of individual cases for 2013 showed that nearly all 

complaints on discriminatory terms, conditions, and privileges 

were for problems that occurred postoccupancy. Paired testing 

was not designed to measure these forms of housing discrimination, but they are as illegal as discrimination at earlier stages, 

and other research methods could observe or measure the 

incidence of such practices.

One approach for learning more about these later stages of 

renting would be to focus on families with children who believe 

they have experienced housing discrimination. A possible sampling frame is the population of families who have filed claims of 

family status discrimination with HUD. The Title Eight Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) is a data 

management system used in the investigation and tracking of 

HUD complaints and compliance reviews. Initial, quantitative 

analysis would focus on the specific forms of discrimination 

alleged and the characteristics of the homeseeker, housing provider, property, and housing market. Then, for a small, carefully 

selected sample of recent complainants, indepth, semistructured 

interviews would be used to compile the stories and experiences 

of renter families who seem to have experienced particularly adverse treatment at the lease-negotiation stage or during occupancy.

Recognize that this approach would not yield estimates of the 

incidence of discrimination, because most people who experience discrimination either do not realize it or do not file formal 

complaints. Instead, a study focused on the characteristics and 

experiences of complainants would provide insight about the 

forms that discrimination against families may take and contribute 

to the design of both housing provider interviews and a largescale survey of renters, discussed further in the next two sections.

11 The total adds up to more than 100 percent because some complaints included multiple claims. In addition, the sample here is limited to cases after 2000, when 

HUD began counting sales and rental cases separately in the TEAPOTS database.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 7

Interviews of Housing Providers

Our understanding of potential discrimination against family 

renters could be advanced by gathering information directly 

from housing providers to explore the knowledge, attitudes, 

and behaviors that may drive or shape discrimination. Indepth 

interviews with rental housing providers could shed light on 

some of the causes and circumstances of discrimination against 

families with children and better inform fair housing education 

and enforcement strategies.

A possible place to start would be with known violators of the 

Fair Housing Amendments Act in cases of family status rental 

housing discrimination. Indepth interviews with housing 

providers that were found to have discriminated could focus 

explicitly on their reasons. For example, did the discrimination 

result from a lack of knowledge about fair housing protections, 

from concerns about disruptive behavior by children, or from 

a view that renting to families with children reduces a property’s 

marketability or is more burdensome for management? Insights 

on these questions could be used to tailor or target fair housing 

education and enforcement efforts. Barriers to this line of research include respondent recalcitrance and social desirability 

bias. Research studies of many other difficult populations and 

topics have been successfully conducted for decades, however, 

so qualitative interviews targeted to discriminatory rental housing providers could be feasible and worth exploring.

An alternative approach would be to conduct qualitative interviews with housing providers regardless of past violation status, 

including representatives of corporate owners and management 

companies. Any reluctance to participate could be mitigated 

using partnerships with associations of property owners and 

managers. For instance, focus groups and indepth interviews 

could be conducted at conferences or surrounding educational 

seminars/courses for rental housing professionals. Discussion 

topics need not be restricted to fair housing issues but could 

cover broader questions about what qualities make for a good 

tenant, the types of questions one can and cannot ask during 

the inquiry, issues of occupancy standards, other aspects surrounding homeseeker screening, and what types of training 

materials would be most helpful. Qualitative analysis could 

reveal gaps of knowledge about family status protections, misinterpretations of current laws, and other practices that may 

result in steering, unequal treatment, or denial of housing, all 

of which could help inform initiatives to better educate rental 

housing providers about fair housing protections.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 8

Large-Scale Survey of Renters

A large-scale survey of renter households—including, but not 

limited to, families with children—could provide a wealth of 

new evidence about the prevalence and forms of negative (and 

potentially discriminatory) treatment during housing search, 

lease negotiation, and occupancy. Explicit questions (and 

response categories) regarding relevant forms of treatment 

would have to be carefully developed, drawing on the qualitative evidence from interviews with fair housing complainants 

discussed previously. Relatively large sample sizes would be 

needed to support a rich, quantitative analysis that could 

reliably measure the incidence of specific forms of perceived 

treatment for multiple subgroups of renter households.

A survey would not have the same power as paired testing 

to directly observe differential treatment of equally qualified 

homeseekers, but it could provide powerful evidence about 

the frequency and forms of negative treatment at all stages of 

search, lease negotiation, and occupancy. With a sufficiently 

large sample size, a survey of renters could reveal significant 

differences across groups (including race/ethnicity, household 

composition, income, and other financial characteristics). 

Multivariate analysis could be applied to control for relevant 

household qualifications to yield reasonable estimates of the 

incidence of negative treatment of protected classes, other 

things being equal.

Conducting a survey of renters faces obstacles. Perhaps the 

biggest obstacle is response bias (errors in the answers that 

are given by respondents), especially if the survey asked about 

negative experiences that may have occurred in the past. 

Restricting the survey questions to respondents’ current rental 

occupancy would provide the most accurate capture of specific 

experiences. For example, recall bias could be minimized if 

respondents are asked only about experiences within the past 

year (or even the past 6 months). This method would require 

that the total sample be large enough to include a sufficient 

number of households that have moved within that time 

period to provide information about their housing search and 

lease negotiation processes (and to produce reliable subgroup 

results).

Rigorous and statistically valid national surveys can be prohibitively expensive, especially if small population subgroups (such 

as recent movers) are to be adequately represented. One way 

to reduce costs would be to add a renter module to an ongoing 

national survey. Adding additional modules to ongoing surveys 

is a relatively inexpensive approach to produce high-quality 

survey data. The downside is that the host survey sponsor 

typically restricts the number of questions that can be added 

to avoid respondent burden issues, because increased burden 

reduces data quality. Therefore, this approach is attractive only 

when the host survey is already capturing a reasonable portion 

of the basic demographic and financial information needed.

The Current Population Survey (CPS), sponsored by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics and conducted by the Census Bureau, may 

be an appropriate candidate for a rental survey module. CPS 

is a national survey of 60,000 households conducted monthly. 

The March iteration typically features the Annual Social and 

Economic supplement,12 but many other supplements are 

also being accommodated.13 Under this approach, HUD could 

commission annual consecutive add-on modules (for a specific 

month) to the CPS for 2 or more years. Then, consecutive annual 

HUD-sponsored modules could be collapsed across years to increase statistical power and facilitate the generation of subgroup 

estimates. As an alternative approach, monthly supplements 

potentially could be commissioned during the course of a year. 

Either of these approaches (both of which would pool data 

across periods) could produce sufficient sample sizes to measure 

the incidence and forms of negative treatment for multiple protected classes. To monitor trends over time, the same approach 

(pooling data across months or years) would have to be repeated, 

probably at 5- or 10-year intervals.

12 See http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf.

13 See http://www.census.gov/cps/about/supplemental.html.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 9

Better Understanding of Contemporary Housing Markets

Recent findings from paired-testing studies of housing market 

discrimination reveal that housing markets and housing market 

practices have changed substantially during the recent decades. 

In particular, housing providers rarely deny protected homeseekers information or access to advertised homes and apartments. More subtle forms of discrimination persist, however, 

and new forms of discrimination may be emerging. Traditional 

methods for measuring discrimination against protected classes 

may not capture all the forms of unfavorable or disadvantageous 

treatment that persist today. Changes to long-established testing 

study designs, along with other research methods, are needed 

to monitor trends in the incidence and forms of housing market 

discrimination and to inform fair housing enforcement and 

education efforts in the future. We specifically recommend—

1. A study focused on local occupancy standards and their 

interpretation and application by rental housing providers.

2. Qualitative interviews with fair housing complainants as 

an essential first step toward designing a “renter module” 

that could be added onto the CPS.

3. Focus groups with rental housing providers about perceptions, attitudes, and practices that may result in adverse 

treatment of protected classes.

4. An exploratory study of the feasibility and effectiveness 

of different approaches for assigning and communicating 

marginal or flawed qualifications to testers in paired-testing 

studies.

In addition, more research should focus on underlying questions 

about how housing markets work, including the experiences, 

perceptions, motivations, and diversity of behaviors among 

homeseekers and housing providers. Key questions include 

how households of various types search for housing; how 

rental housing providers are structured and managed and how 

these differences may affect their strategies and behaviors; how 

technology may be changing the behaviors of both homeseekers 

and housing providers; and how market practices vary across 

different types of neighborhoods. Demographic and housing 

market projections point to an impending boom in the number 

of renter households nationwide. Better understanding how 

rental housing markets work—and the factors that may contribute to disparate outcomes for protected classes—should be a 

top priority for housing policy research in the years ahead.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS 10

References

American Community Survey (ACS). 2010. 2008–2010 ACS 

3-year Public Use Microdata Sample. Washingotn, DC: U.S. 

Census Bureau.

American Housing Survey (AHS). 2011. AHS 2011 National and 

Metropolitan PUF. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Aron, Laudan, Claudia Aranda, Douglas Wissoker, Brent Howell, 

Robert Santos, Molly Scott, and Margery Austin Turner. 2016. 

Discrimination Against Families With Children in Rental Housing 

Markets: Findings of the Pilot Study. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Turner, Margery, Rob Santos, Diane K. Levy, Doug Wissoker, 

Claudia Aranda, and Rob Pitingolo. 2013. Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.