DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN 

RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS:

FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY

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: this report on the findings of the pilot study and an essay on alternative approaches to studying 

and monitoring housing discrimination in the future. The reports are available from HUDUSER.gov.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN 

RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS:

FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Laudan Aron

Claudia Aranda

Douglas Wissoker

Brent Howell

Robert Santos

with Molly Scott and Margery Austin Turner

Urban Institute

December 2016
Acknowledgments

This pilot study could not have been completed without the 

hard work and commitment of the local fair housing organizations that conducted testing in the three study sites: North 

Texas Fair Housing Center (Dallas, Texas); Miami Valley Fair 

Housing Center (Dayton, Ohio); and the Fair Housing Foundation (Los Angeles, California). The authors are most grateful for 

their participation and contributions to this study.

A panel of expert advisors also contributed to the authors’ 

understanding of discrimination against families with children 

in the rental housing market. They provided valuable input 

and feedback that inform many aspects of the design of this 

pilot study. The panel members (and their affiliations at the 

time of the study) were James Carr (Opportunity Agenda), 

Frances Espinoza (North Texas Fair Housing Center), George 

Galster (Wayne State University), Mark Joseph (Case Western 

Reserve University), Richard Sander (University of California, 

Los Angeles), and Susan Scovill (Scovill Consulting). Several 

outside readers reviewed and critiqued our draft report, and 

we thank them for their helpful comments: Camille Charles 

(University of Pennsylvania), Stephanie DeLuca (Johns Hopkins 

University), Timothy Iglesias (University of San Francisco 

School of Law), Lincoln Quillian (Northwestern University), 

and Stephen Ross (University of Connecticut).

The authors also thank Urban Institute colleagues who 

contributed to the successful completion of the research. 

Regional coordinator Maury Destouet worked closely with the 

local testing organizations to ensure their tests met the highest 

standards of quality and provided a critical link between the 

field director and the test sites; Dave D’Orio designed the webbased data system used to enter and share testing information 

and developed and managed the process for electronically 

sampling ads from online sources; Jessica Kelly and Raihan 

Amin helped Dave maintain the web-based data system; Austin 

Nichols provided helpful advice on analysis issues; Diane Levy 

helped advise the project throughout; Rob Pitingolo helped 

troubleshoot data analysis and statistical programming issues; 

and Tim Ware, Diane Hendricks, and Jeaneen Zanovello assisted throughout the study with project administration, including 

preparing this report.

Finally, Elizabeth Rudd from the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and 

Research provided thoughtful guidance, oversight, and input at 

every stage of this pilot study.

Despite the generous contributions from these individuals and 

organizations, any errors and omissions that may remain in this 

report are those of the authors alone. All views expressed are 

those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban 

Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

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.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY iii

Foreword

This report provides results of the first large paired-testing 

study of discrimination against families with children in 

the rental housing market. When the Fair Housing Act was 

amended in 1988 to prohibit discrimination in housing and 

lending transactions against families with children less than 

the age of 18, including homeseekers who are pregnant, much 

discussion focused on the limitations that age-restricted housing (“adult” and “senior” or retirement communities) placed 

on access to housing for families with children. In addition, 

some observers argued that excluding families was sometimes 

actually a ruse for excluding African-Americans. The highest 

percentage of fair housing complaints filed in 1990 after the 

amendments went into effect involved discrimination against 

families, and the number of familial status complaints hit a 

high point in 1993. Today, this report indicates that families 

with children are not treated very differently from families 

without children when they apply for rental housing.

Paired testing was designed to detect race-based discrimination 

by sending otherwise equally qualified applicants of different 

races (originally one White and one African-American) to 

apply for housing selected to represent a housing market. To 

detect discrimination, researchers look for differences in the 

treatment of African-American and White testers. This study 

adapted paired-testing methods to families with children. 

Comparing the treatment of testers with and without children 

across more than 600 tests in three different cities, the study 

found no evidence of outright refusal to rent to families with 

children and very few differences in treatment overall. In addition, the study found no differences by race in the likelihood of 

experiencing familial status discrimination. Families with children were steered toward larger units, however, an action that 

may increase costs and limit availability. Occupancy standards 

that limit occupancy to two persons per bedroom may also 

affect the opportunities available to families with children if 

such standards prevent consideration of smaller units that—in 

light of family composition, room size, or cost—might still be 

acceptably sized from the family’s point of view.

Limitations of the study are that it focused on documenting 

discrimination when financially well-qualified families apply 

for rental housing and only at the first stage of a family’s search, 

the point at which an appointment with the rental agent is 

scheduled and available units are viewed. Thus, this study does 

not measure discrimination that may occur during a family’s 

rental tenure or even if the family succeeded in obtaining a 

lease. Families with children may encounter discrimination 

throughout a rental relationship. For instance, a recent study of 

evictions in one U.S. city found that the presence of children in 

the household nearly tripled a tenant’s likelihood of receiving an 

eviction judgment relative to other households with similar rent 

arrears.* Traditional matched-pair testing cannot identify such 

differences later in the rental relationship or determine whether 

they arise from discrimination or other factors.

Nevertheless, this report shows room for optimism, indicating 

that a typical family with one or two children likely will not experience direct refusals in their search for rental housing and that 

some increased flexibility regarding the unit size and occupancy 

could increase the rental housing available to families even more.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

*

 Desmond, Matthew. 2013. “Evicting Children,” Social Forces 92 (1): 303–327.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY iv

Contents

Abstract.................................................................................. v

Executive Summary............................................................... vi

Research Goals and Questions....................................... vii

Pilot Study Findings in Brief ......................................... vii

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

Background on Family-Based Discrimination ......................... 2

Why Care About Housing Discrimination?...................... 2

What Have Paired-Testing Studies of Housing 

Discrimination Found?............................................ 3

What Do We Know About Discrimination Against 

Families?.................................................................. 4

How Might Discrimination Against Families With 

Children Affect Childhood Development? ............... 6

Family Renters in the American Housing Survey............. 6

Pilot Study Methods............................................................. 12

Overview of the Study Design....................................... 12

Analytical Approach to Estimating Differences in 

Treatment.............................................................. 16

Pilot Study Findings............................................................. 20

Overall Estimates of Discrimination .............................. 20

Estimates of Discrimination by Family Characteristics... 23

Estimates of Discrimination by Data Collection 

Method.................................................................. 26

Extended Data Analyses ....................................................... 29

Vacancy Rates in the Pilot Study Sites ........................... 29

Role of Professional Management Companies................ 29

Rental Agent Comments and Tester Narratives.............. 30

Tester Assignment to Protected Class Versus Control 

Tests...................................................................... 31

TEAPOTS Data and Familial Status............................... 31

Role of Residential Occupancy Standards in the Pilot 

Study Sites............................................................. 32

Discussion and Conclusions................................................. 35

Appendix A. Sampling Rental Housing Ads.......................... 37

Appendix B. Maps of Testing Metropolitan Statistical Areas.. 38

Appendix C. Testing Protocols Overview and Field 

Management ................................................................. 41

Testing Process.............................................................. 41

Field Implementation Challenges.................................. 43

Appendix D. Pilot Study Report Forms ................................ 44

Appendix E. Analysis Indicators........................................... 73

Appendix F. References........................................................ 74
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY v

Abstract

This pilot study adapted a well-established paired-testing 

methodology to examine discrimination against families with 

children in the rental housing market, developed preliminary 

estimates of this form of discrimination, and explored what 

family or housing characteristics might affect it. Data were 

collected via telephone and in-person paired tests in three 

metropolitan sites: Dallas, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and Los Angeles, 

California. The pilot study relied on a multifactor design using 

data from 612 matched pairs of rental applicants. Key findings 

are that homeseekers with or without children are equally likely 

to get an appointment with a rental agent and learn about at 

least one available housing unit. Compared with their childless 

counterparts, prospective renters with children were shown 

slightly fewer units and were told about units that were slightly 

larger, and, as a result, were slightly more expensive to rent. 

Other outcomes did not vary by the presence of a child. Differential treatment was greater in tests targeting one-bedroom 

units (versus larger units) and tests involving two-child families 

(versus one-child families). Other factors, including race/ethnicity 

and marital status of the tester and ages and sexes of the children, 

did not appear to affect systematically how families with children 

were treated in the rental housing market.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY vi

Executive Summary

In 1988, the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 was amended 

to protect pregnant women and families with children from 

discrimination in the housing market. These protections cover 

many forms of discrimination, including advertising housing 

as being for specific groups (for example, adults), claiming 

housing is unavailable when it is, varying the terms of a sale 

or rental in ways that favor one group more than another, or 

terminating tenancy for discriminatory reasons. Before such 

protections were in place, it was not uncommon for landlords 

or property managers simply to bar children less than 18 years 

of age or restrict the number of children permitted in units 

(Colten and Marans, 1982). One study found that more than 

one-fourth of the nation’s rental housing units barred children 

less than 18 years old (Marans et al., 1980).

Although rental homes and apartments are often thought of 

as housing for singles and unrelated roommates, increasingly 

families with children are renting (Schmit, 2012) and account 

for nearly as many renters as single individuals (JCHS, 2013). 

Housing, especially stable, affordable housing, is important to 

children’s well-being (Galster, 2014; Newman and Holupka, 

2014). Having a high-quality affordable home enables families 

to spend a greater share of their incomes on nutritious food, 

health care, and other things that promote good health. It also 

contributes to greater residential stability, which limits the 

stress and trauma associated with frequent or unwanted moves, 

and prevents homelessness (Anderson et al., 2014). Safe and 

stable housing also contributes to better educational outcomes 

(Brennan, 2011; Cohen, 2011).

By comparison with childless renters, families with children 

unfortunately face significant challenges in the rental housing 

market. Many families with children rely on the rental housing 

market to meet their basic housing needs. In communities where 

this market is tight, many families struggle to find housing 

that is safe, affordable, and conveniently located near schools, 

transportation, and employment (Aratani et al., 2011; JCHS, 

2013). It is important from the perspective of both policy and 

practice to understand to what extent housing discrimination 

may contribute to these challenges.

Today, more than 25 years after passage of the Fair Housing 

Amendments Act of 1988, too little is known about the extent 

and forms of discrimination against families with children. 

Local fair housing groups and the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) regularly receive complaints 

about this form of housing discrimination. The National Fair 

Housing Alliance (NFHA) annual reports on fair housing complaints suggest families with children face discrimination (14 

percent of HUD claims in 2010 and 12.5 percent in 2011), 

but no recent systematic studies have explored this problem 

(NFHA, 2011, 2012). The few studies that have been done are 

quite old and/or are limited in terms of geography and scope 

(Colten and Marans, 1982; Fairfax County Human Rights 

Commission, 2010; Marans et al., 1980).

Surveys of the public suggest that federal protections from 

discrimination based on family composition are not widely 

understood. In 2000, only 38 percent of respondents to a 

survey testing knowledge of fair housing law correctly identified 

discriminatory practices against families with children (Abravanel and Cunningham, 2002). When the same fair housing law 

survey was readministered in 2005, the share of respondents 

who could correctly identify discrimination against families 

with children was only slightly higher, at 44 percent (Abravanel, 2006). In both surveys, respondents had more difficulty 

identifying discrimination against families with children than 

other forms of housing discrimination.

Paired testing has proved to be a useful research tool for tracking the incidence and forms of discrimination against racial and 

ethnic minorities (Turner et al., 2002, 2013; Turner, Struyk, 

and Yinger, 1991; Wienk et al., 1979) and can be adapted to 

measure discrimination against families with children. In a paired 

test, two people who are very similar—except that one has children and the other does not—pose as equally qualified homeseekers and inquire about available homes or apartments. Each 

tester independently records the treatment he or she experiences, 

including information about all the homes or apartments recommended and shown. The results across many paired tests 

are compared to determine whether and how the treatment 

experienced by testers with children differs systematically from 

that experienced by testers without children, measuring the 

incidence and forms of discrimination. This approach can capture discrimination at multiple points in the homeseeking and 

rental process, from contacting the rental agent to secure an 

appointment to meeting with the agent to view available units 

and learn about move-in dates, monthly rent, security deposits, 

utilities, and the like. Paired testing does not extend into the 

lease-signing or postoccupancy stages of the process.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY vii

Research Goals and Questions

This pilot study is the first study to systematically examine rental 

housing discrimination against families with children. HUD 

commissioned the Urban Institute to adapt proven paired-testing 

methods to measure discrimination against families with children seeking rental housing and pilot these methods in three 

metropolitan areas across the United States. The primary goals 

of the study were to develop a preliminary estimate of discrimination against families with children in the rental housing 

market; to understand how interactions of race, ethnicity, the 

age and sex of the child or children, and the marital status of 

the parent might affect discrimination against families with 

children; and to assess the feasibility of this approach as a basis 

for a larger national study. Five specific research questions 

guided the overall direction and scope of the study.

1. What do we know about discrimination against families 

with children in rental housing, and what are the most 

important unanswered questions?

2. What are the most appropriate methods for measuring 

differential treatment in the rental market based on 

familial status?

3. How can rental housing discrimination on the basis of 

familial status be tested in the field?

4. What variations, if any, exist in rental housing discrimination against families with children based on family or 

landlord characteristics?

5. How can we produce a national estimate of rental housing 

discrimination against families with children that also 

takes into account variations in family and landlord 

characteristics?

This report presents the detailed findings of the paired-testing 

pilot study. A companion report published by HUD discusses 

alternative research options for continuing to study this issue. 

A related report published by the Urban Institute describes in 

detail how paired testing can be used to study discrimination 

against families with children.

Pilot Study Findings in Brief

This study found no evidence of outright refusals to meet 

with or rent to people with children. 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. Prospective 

renters with children were told about larger units (on average) 

than childless households inquiring about the same-size units. 

Because larger units tend to cost more (all other things being 

equal), families with children were quoted higher rents than 

childless households. After adjusting for number of bedrooms, 

however, the overall rent, fees, and financial incentives did not 

differ for homeseekers with and without children.

One other form of differential treatment emerged from the 

study: families with children were shown fewer units than those 

without children. For every six in-person visits to housing providers, families with children were shown one fewer rental unit 

(0.18 fewer units per visit when both testers were told a unit 

was available) than families without children. This difference 

may not seem large, but even small differences such as this can 

constrain families’ housing search experiences by either extending 

their housing search or reducing the options from which they 

can choose. Other treatment indicators, such as being offered a 

month-to-month or a 2-year lease, numbers of problems with 

the units, and remarks made by the rental agent, did not reveal 

evidence of differential treatment against families with children.

The study also examined whether certain family characteristics 

might affect discrimination against families with children. The 

following questions about family characteristics are answered 

by our findings.

•	 Are families of color more likely to experience discrimination based on the presence of children than are White 

families? We found no evidence that discrimination against 

families with children varied with race or ethnicity.

•	 Are families with two children more likely to experience 

discrimination based on the presence of children than 

families with one child? This factor did make a difference: 

compared with one-child families, two-child families were 

shown units with slightly higher rents and were shown 

slightly fewer units.

•	 Do the ages or sexes of the children affect the likelihood 

of discrimination against families with children? Because 

we had to limit the number of factors we could test, we 

examined three combinations of these characteristics: a 

child younger than 6 years of age (of either sex), a teen 

male, and a teen female. We found no evidence that these 

child characteristics made a difference.

•	 Does the marital status of the renter affect the likelihood of 

discrimination against families with children? Some testers 

presented themselves as single female heads of household 

or as being part of a married couple, and this factor did not 

affect the results of key outcomes of interest.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY viii

• Does the size of the apartment unit (one versus two or 

three bedrooms) affect how families with children are 

treated in the rental housing market relative to families 

without children? When comparing the experience of 

renters with and without children, we observe larger differences for the paired tests involving one-bedroom tests 

than those involving two- or three-bedroom tests. These 

larger differences are observed for four outcomes: (1) the 

ability to obtain any information over the phone about an 

advertised unit, (2) whether the tester is told about any 

unit being available, (3) whether the tester is told about 

the requested-size unit being available, and (4) the average 

number of units of the requested-size unit being available. 

In short, more evidence of differential treatment among 

the one-bedroom tests appeared than the tests involving 

two or three bedrooms.

The current study was also designed to explore the feasibility 

and cost-effectiveness of telephone testing versus in-person 

testing in a large national paired-testing study. In-person testing 

is about 2.5 times more costly than telephone testing, so it is 

important to understand what can be collected reliably through 

each method. Information on the number and size of units 

shown can be captured only through in-person visits, but for 

the subset of outcomes that can be collected by telephone or 

in person, our findings are mixed. In a multivariate analysis 

of tests combining both telephone and in-person results, we 

found higher levels of differential treatment during telephone 

inquiries for measures of unit availability and higher levels 

of differential treatment during in-person visits for measures 

relating to unit size. In particular, telephone tests yielded somewhat greater levels of differential treatment compared with 

in-person tests for two specific measures: (1) whether any unit 

was available (p = 0.069) or (2) whether an advertised unit was 

available (p = 0.052). Further, comments on occupancy standards were more common in the telephone tests (p = 0.000). 

In-person tests led to greater levels of differential treatment for 

three specific measures: (1) the number of units of another size 

the tester was told about (p = 0.014), (2) being told about a larger 

size than what the tester requested (p = 0.004), and (3) the 

number of larger units the tester was told about (p = 0.002).

Looking only at the treatment results between the in-person 

and telephone results, rather than the difference in the amount 

of information that can be collected from each method, we 

found that if we conducted tests only by telephone we would 

conclude that families with children are more likely to be told 

about larger units, and thus, more expensive units. We would 

also capture agent comments about occupancy standards, but 

we would not know information about units shown or whether 

agents offered different incentives, which was the only measure 

of differential treatment for which the information was statistically significant for in-person versus telephone testing.

The good news from this pilot study is that overall rates of housing discrimination against families with children, as measured 

through a paired-testing approach, were low. No signs occurred 

of blatant door slamming or excluding of families with children. 

The news is not all good, however. The study revealed some 

evidence of steering, meaning that some rental agents show 

families with children larger units with higher rents and show 

them slightly fewer units. These subtle differences in the sizes 

and number of units available to these renters are important to 

consider because they may constrain the choices for some families seeking rental housing. The finding that slightly fewer units 

were shown to families with children parallels a similar finding 

in the most recent national study on housing discrimination 

against racial and ethnic minorities (Turner et al., 2013).

Remember the limitations of paired-testing housing discrimination studies. This pilot study on familial status discrimination 

focused on a specific period within the homeseeking continuum, 

namely the initial inquiry and interaction with housing providers 

and, by design, was limited to families whose financial circumstances made them well qualified for the housing they requested. 

Both of these features of the study design limit the applicability 

of the findings. The study was not designed to detect discrimination that might happen later in the process (that is, at lease 

signing or postoccupancy), nor does it speak to the experiences 

in the rental housing market of families with blemished credit, 

irregular employment, or incomes insufficient to cover the rent 

for the house or apartment under consideration. Many families 

with children experience much higher rent burdens (Aratani 

et al., 2011) than what a paired-testing study assumes, and so 

the findings presented here may not apply to that important 

subgroup of families with children.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 1

Introduction

Families with children are an important segment of the rental 

housing market. Renter households with children currently 

comprise approximately one-third of the rental market (AHS, 

2011), and they have recently started to comprise a larger portion of renter households because of the falloff in their homeownership rates (JCHS, 2013). Compared with other renters, 

renter households with children have similar incomes, but they 

have more family members to support, need larger (and often 

more expensive) rental units, and are more likely to experience 

rent burden, meaning more than 30 percent of their income 

goes toward rent (AHS, 2011). As a result, their housing is 

often less affordable than for their childless counterparts.

Families with children are protected under the Fair Housing 

Amendments Act of 1988. Reports from the National Fair 

Housing Alliance (NFHA) (2011, 2012) cite discrimination 

against families with children as the third most common form 

of complaint filed with fair housing groups, yet no rigorous 

studies focus on discrimination against families with children.1

In the past, researchers have used paired testing to compare 

the experiences of different homeseekers to measure discrimination in the rental housing market. This paired-testing method 

was adapted for research purposes from fair housing groups 

that used equally qualified testers of different races to establish 

discrimination. It is a method that has a long history of yielding 

evidence about discrimination and national estimates of discrimination, particularly against racial and ethnic minorities. 

These methods more recently have been adapted to measure 

discrimination against other protected classes under the Fair 

Housing Act.

This study used well-established paired-testing methods to 

determine whether renter households with children face discrimination at the inquiry stage of their housing search. The pilot 

study was designed to measure discrimination against families 

with children at three testing sites, with the intention of designing 

a study that could estimate discrimination across the country.

In the remainder of this report, chapter 2 summarizes the 

literature on discrimination, paired testing, and familial status 

discrimination and presents data on family renters from the 

2011 American Housing Survey (AHS). Chapter 3 describes 

the methodology for the pilot study, and chapter 4 presents the 

findings, which were very surprising to the research team, the 

expert panel, and others in the field of housing discrimination 

studies. The surprising findings in chapter 4 motivate chapter 5, 

which presents additional analyses of the paired-testing data 

and other evidence. Chapter 6 sums up the study.

1

 The Fairfax County [Virginia] Human Rights Commission (2010) conducted an exploratory study using paired telephone testing of discrimination on the basis of 

familial status. Family size varied across the tests; in 3 of 20 tests, families with children were rejected or discouraged when expressing interest in renting a sampled 

unit.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 2

Background on Family-Based Discrimination

In 1988, growing concerns about discrimination against families with children prompted policymakers to amend the Fair 

Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 to add families with children as a 

newly protected group. Before this time, landlords and property managers could legally discourage or even outright reject 

applicants with children. Enacted as Title VIII of the Civil 

Rights act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act originally prohibited 

discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin 

in the sale or rental of housing and other real estate-related 

transactions.2 The Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988 to 

prohibit discrimination in the housing market against families 

with children, including “any person who is pregnant or is in 

the process of securing legal custody of any individual who has 

not attained the age of 18 years.”3 In addition to prohibiting the 

outright denial of housing to families with children, the Fair 

Housing Act restricts housing providers from subjecting families 

with children to special conditions or requirements, such as 

paying additional fees, being forced into special sections of a 

building, limiting access to recreational features of an apartment 

complex, and terminating tenancy for discriminatory reasons.

Although legal protections have been in place for more than 25 

years, little research has focused on familial status discrimination in rental housing. Most housing discrimination research 

has focused on race and ethnicity. This focus is especially evident for systematic paired-testing studies that produce national 

estimates of discrimination against minority renters. Until quite 

recently, these methods have not been applied to other groups, 

such as families with children. Previous studies of discrimination against families with children are limited by their small 

sample sizes, narrow geographic coverage (often a single city or 

metropolitan area), and inconsistent comparison groups. The 

larger studies relied on survey methods rather than paired testing and were done before the enactment of the Fair Housing 

Amendments Act. The pilot study reported here is the first 

effort to estimate rates of familial status discrimination in rental 

housing, to use paired testing on a large scale,4 and to systematically evaluate the influence of race, ethnicity, and family 

composition on access to rental housing.

Why Care About Housing 

Discrimination?

When the federal Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, AfricanAmerican families were routinely and explicitly denied homes 

and apartments in White neighborhoods. The law unfortunately 

did not appear to significantly improve problems of residential 

segregation between White and African-American households 

(Massey, 2001), although the nature of the discrimination may 

have changed as a result of the new law. As Massey (2001) 

explained—

Black home seekers [now] face a more subtle process 

of exclusion. Rather than encountering ‘White only’ 

signs, they encounter a covert series of barriers. Blacks 

who inquire about an advertised unit may be told that 

it has just been sold or rented; they may be shown 

only the advertised unit and told that no others are 

available; they may only be shown houses in Black 

or racially mixed areas and led away from White 

neighborhoods; they may be quoted a higher rent or 

selling price than Whites; they may be told that the 

selling agents are too busy and to come back later; 

their phone number may be taken but a return call 

never made; they may be shown units but offered no 

assistance in arranging financing; or they simply may 

be treated brusquely and discourteously in hopes that 

they will leave. (Massey, 2001: 415)

Other protected groups, including families with children, may 

also experience these more subtle forms of exclusion, and it is 

important to understand to what extent they do.

The effects of discrimination can be particularly harmful for families with children. Research before the Fair Housing Amendments Act suggests that the effects of exclusionary policies for 

families with children resulted in employment-related problems, 

such as increased travel and decreased access to jobs in adjacent 

cities; fewer or no school choices; higher rent burdens on families; 

and emotional distress associated with having to move more 

2

 The language of the law, including the 1988 amendments, appears in 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601–3631.

3

 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. See http://www.portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights.

4

 We are aware of only one study conducted since the inclusion of familial status in the Fair Housing Act that has used paired testing to investigate discrimination 

against families with children. This small exploratory study is described in a report published by the Fairfax County [Virginia] Human Rights Commission (2010). 

The commission conducted paired telephone testing of discrimination on the basis of familial status. Family size varied across the tests; in 3 of 20 tests, families with 

children were rejected or discouraged when expressing interest in renting a sampled unit.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 3

frequently (Blake and Greene, 1980; Simms, 1980). Other 

outcomes included longer housing searches, forced moves, 

overcrowding, lower housing quality, forced separation from 

family members, and more nontraditional living situations. 

Colten and Marans (1982) indicated that exclusionary policies 

can result in longer housing searches and less desirable housing 

or locational choice. Further, housing discrimination may harm 

children if it contributes to housing instability and frequent 

moves (Anderson et al., 2014). Moves resulting from unplanned 

or involuntary circumstances and moves that occur as part of a 

pattern of frequent mobility have negative effects on child and 

family welfare, including increased school absenteeism and a 

higher incidence of neighborhood problems (for example, vandalism, muggings, drug use, gangs; Cohen and Wardrip, 2011).

What Have Paired-Testing Studies of 

Housing Discrimination Found?

HUD has monitored trends in racial and ethnic discrimination 

in both rental and sales markets since the late 1970s through 

a series of national paired-testing studies. Paired testing is a 

powerful tool for measuring housing discrimination. Paired tests 

traditionally involve sending two individuals—one a minority 

and the other White—to pose as equally qualified homeseekers. 

Both testers are carefully trained to make the same inquiries, express the same preferences, and present the same qualifications 

and needs. From the perspective of the housing provider, the 

only difference between the two testers is their race or ethnicity, 

and so, by law, they should receive the same information and 

options. Testers keep track of treatment indicators such as whether they are told a unit is available. Systematic differences in 

treatment across many tests provide direct evidence of discrimination. The intent to discriminate is not explicitly necessary for 

differential treatment. The ability of paired testing to detect subtle 

differences regardless of intent is a key advantage of this approach.

Paired testing is a tool that was originally developed to enforce 

fair housing laws by enabling researchers to detect and document 

individual instances of discrimination. As described previously, 

it has also been used to rigorously measure the prevalence of 

discrimination in the housing market since the 1970s. When 

large numbers of tests are conducted consistently in a representative sample of housing markets, they can be used to develop 

statistically representative measures of adverse treatment of 

certain groups as defined by the characteristic that distinguishes 

the two halves of the paired test: the protected class tester (for 

example, a person who is African-American or a parent) and 

the control tester (for example, an otherwise matched tester who 

is White or childless). Research testing differs from enforcement 

testing in several important ways. Because its focus is the housing 

market in a large community, such as a city or metropolitan 

area, research testing covers a representative sample of available 

rental units rather than specific properties or individual neighborhoods where discrimination is suspected. Research testing 

also requires larger numbers of consistent tests covering multiple 

housing providers rather than multiple tests of a single housing 

provider to establish discrimination.

The first national paired-testing study (conducted in 1977) 

focused on discrimination against African-American households 

and found high levels of discrimination in both rental and sales 

markets (Wienk et al., 1979). At that time, it was not uncommon 

for African-American homeseekers to be told that no homes or 

apartments were available or to be denied an opportunity to meet 

with a rental or sales agent. A 1989 study looked at discrimination 

against Hispanic and African-American homeseekers and again 

found high levels of discriminatory treatment in both rental and 

sales markets nationwide (Turner, Struyk, and Yinger, 1991). 

That study concluded that overall levels of discrimination against 

African-American homeseekers had not changed significantly 

since 1977, although its forms were changing to become more 

subtle and harder to detect. Since these early studies, two decennial studies have continued to estimate housing discrimination 

against African-American, Hispanic, and Asian homeseekers 

nationally (Turner et al., 2002, 2013; Turner and Ross, 2003a, 

2003b). These studies show significant declines in discrimination against African-American homeseekers from their historically high levels, but discrimination persists. For example, 

African-American renters are much less likely than they were 

in the past to be told an advertised unit is no longer available, 

but, like Hispanic and Asian renters, they are still told about 

and shown fewer housing units than equally qualified White 

renters. Smaller levels of other forms of discrimination against 

minority renters were also found, relating to housing costs, 

quality, and helpfulness of the rental agent.

Although best known for studies of discrimination on the 

basis of race/ethnicity, systemic paired-testing studies are now 

being used to examine discrimination on the basis of other 

renter characteristics. Housing discrimination against people 

with various forms of disability (Levy et al., 2015), same-sex 

couples (Freidman et al., 2013), transgender individuals, and 

people who use housing vouchers have all been the subject of 

paired-testing studies. Each adaptation requires careful thought 

to best capture the subtleties and nuances that may contribute 

to different ways these groups may experience discrimination.

Despite its tremendous power and potential, paired testing also 

has a number of limitations. For practical reasons, paired testing cannot be used at certain important stages in a transaction. 

For example, research testers cannot formally submit fraudulent 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 4

information as part of a signed rental or loan application, so 

these studies do not capture discrimination that might occur 

at the final stage of a rental (or sales) transaction. In a similar 

way, discrimination against established tenants (such as in lease 

renewals or property use and maintenance) is not captured in 

paired-testing studies. Any discrimination that occurs before 

or after the time of initial inquiry and information gathering 

will not be reflected in a paired-testing study. In addition, 

many paired-testing studies have generally not reflected the 

circumstances of an average or typical homeseeker because 

all testers present themselves as unambiguously well qualified 

financially for the home. We know, however, that at least 41 

percent of renters and 43 percent of family renters are not, 

in fact, “well qualified”5 (because they are rent burdened), so 

paired-testing methods might not reflect the actual experiences 

of large shares of rental housing applicants with children (AHS, 

2011). Finally, paired testing does not get at intent and cannot 

answer questions as to why discrimination occurs.

What Do We Know About 

Discrimination Against Families?

Before the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act, landlords and 

property managers could legally discourage or reject applicants 

with children, often by adopting adults-only policies. In their 

survey of more than 1,000 tenants and more than 600 managers, 

Marans et al. (1980) found that more than one-fourth of the 

nation’s rental housing units barred children who were less 

than 18 years of age. In addition to no-child policies, rental 

housing managers were found to (1) restrict the ages of children 

permitted in units, (2) cap the number of children permitted 

in a unit, (3) discourage the sharing of bedrooms by children 

of the opposite sex, (4) restrict buildings or floors of buildings 

in complexes where children were permitted, and (5) charge 

higher rents or require larger security deposits (Colten and 

Marans, 1982). All these practices presented additional challenges 

for families with children and further restricted their ability 

to secure safe, affordable housing. We unfortunately have no 

reliable estimates of how common these practices were or how 

many families were affected by them.

Goebel and Rosenberg (1992) discuss three reasons landlords 

may discriminate against families with children: (1) they perceive an increased risk of liability and incur additional costs 

when providing various safeguards and other precautionary 

measures, (2) they incur higher operating costs because of 

children’s “destructive nature,” and (3) they want to retain the 

ability to be more selective and exclude families with children 

when rental housing markets are tight. Since the implementation 

of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act, the courts have not 

upheld any of these arguments as legitimate reasons for denying 

families with children access to rental housing.

The 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act curbed many of the 

overt strategies that landlords used to discriminate against families with children, but the forms and extent of discrimination 

that may persist today are unknown to researchers and policymakers. Anecdotal evidence and personal accounts registered 

through complaint data suggest that landlords continue to discriminate against many families with children. Schill and Friedman (1999) examined the decade after the implementation 

of the Fair Housing Amendments Act and showed that familial 

status claims made up a significant share (45.7 percent) of all 

discrimination claims filed with HUD in 1990. In the next 7 years, 

a large drop occurred in the number of familial status complaints 

(18.2 percent of the complaints filed with HUD in 1997), but 

they still represented the third most common form of discrimination complaint. The practices covered by this evidence tend 

to fall into one of two categories: (1) practices that restrict access 

(for example, refusing to rent, misrepresenting availability, setting 

different terms or conditions) or (2) practices that treat renters 

with children differently from other renters (for example, providing different services, denying privileges).6

 Two more recently 

published NFHA reports show that families with children might 

still face discrimination in the rental housing market. One study 

found that advertisements in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act were disproportionately directed at families with 

children (NFHA, 2009). The more recently published 2012 

Fair Housing Trends Report found that complaints on the basis 

of familial status constituted 12.1 percent of all discrimination 

complaints filed with HUD, largely the same share found in 

their 2008 assessment (NFHA, 2012).

Complaint data provide an incomplete view of the actual extent 

of housing discrimination because they require that people both 

recognize the discrimination and also file a complaint. HUD has 

also recognized that limited public awareness of fair housing 

laws reduces recognition of discriminatory actions (HUD, 

2000). Some overreporting of discrimination in complaint data 

may have occurred, because not all allegations are necessarily 

valid, and complaints from individuals who fall into more than 

5

 “Well qualified” typically indicates both a renter’s credit and income relative to the rent of the unit. Because the AHS data do not have information about renters’ 

credit, we used rent burden to define well qualified.

6

 For a description of discriminatory actions prohibited by the 1988 Fair Housings Amendments Act, see http://www.uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C45.txt.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 5

one protected class may be filed in more than one category. In 

sum, complaint data provide information on the experiences 

that drive people to complain, but they cannot provide systematic evidence about the prevalence of housing discrimination.

Abravanel and Cunningham (2002) confirmed the public’s 

limited awareness of fair housing rights. Their national survey 

of 1,001 respondents, conducted by the University of Michigan’s 

Survey Research Center in late 2000, revealed a lack of awareness in general about fair housing and about discrimination 

specifically against families. According to their results, only 

38 percent of those surveyed offered a correct response when 

asked about the legality of differential treatment of families 

with children. When the survey was readministered in 2005,7

the share of respondents who could correctly identify differential 

treatment of families as discriminatory was only slightly higher 

(44 percent; Abravanel, 2006). In both surveys, respondents 

had the greatest difficulty correctly identifying differential treatment of families with children as discriminatory compared 

with other forms of discrimination.

Thinking about who is affected by discrimination based on 

familial status seems relatively straightforward until one considers how much diversity exists in types of families and their 

housing. This diversity has important implications for how to 

design and conduct a paired-testing study on familial status 

discrimination in rental housing. Because of the multidimensional nature of family composition, discrimination directed at 

families with children can take different forms among different 

groups of families. In fact, some observers think these differences can interact with each other in ways that may mitigate or 

exacerbate the denial of housing opportunities for families. The 

following sections discuss some of these family and housing 

characteristics in depth. These same factors were considered 

when designing the pilot study, because ignoring them might 

limit our ability to detect discrimination in some cases.

Race/Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Sex

In the leadup to the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act, 

many observers argued that no-child policies actually served 

as a pretext to deny renters on the basis of race, sex, or marital 

status. In examining state and federal housing complaint data, 

Tester (2006) argued that discrimination based on familial 

status intersects with other factors, specifically parents’ race, 

sex, and marital status. He looked at data from the Ohio Civil 

Rights Commission on 648 settled housing discrimination 

cases filed on the basis of sex (including sexual harassment) 

and familial status from 1988 through 2003. He found that 

African-American renters were disproportionately affected 

by familial status discrimination, representing 84 percent of 

all familial status cases. Women were also disproportionally 

represented in most claims of discrimination filed on the basis 

of familial status. In particular, African-American women represented 57 percent of the 173 serious familial status cases. He 

notes, however, that African-American women may underreport 

discrimination based on race, sex, or familial status. First, complaint data do not accurately reflect all acts of discrimination 

because landlords can misrepresent available units and rents 

in a way that conceals their discriminatory behavior. Second, 

landlords are not always explicit in their preferences, which 

makes identifying a landlord’s motivation for discrimination 

difficult (for example, renters may not be accepted for one or 

more reasons—because they are African-American, because 

they have children, because they are women). Tester’s (2006) 

findings contradict those of Colton and Marans (1982), which 

predate the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act. They found 

that “the data do not directly support the oft-repeated claim 

that female headed households and minority groups are more 

likely to be victims of restrictive practices.”

A paired-testing study conducted by Galster and Constantine 

(1991) focused primarily on discrimination against femaleheaded households, with 11 tests in January 1985 in Wooster, 

Ohio. This study predated federal protections for families with 

children and used very small samples, but it did document 

outright denials to women with children on telephone interviews 

and also found that these same women were treated less courteously than childless female testers during in-person appointments.

Ages and Number of Children

Families may have different experiences in the rental housing 

market depending on the ages or number of their children. 

Landlords might worry more about the possibility of excessive 

noise or wear and tear associated with tenants with young 

children or the possibility of vandalism and loitering with older 

youth. The 2010 Fairfax County paired-testing telephone audit 

suggests that landlords may be more likely to discriminate 

against families with more children (Fairfax County Human 

Rights Commission, 2010).

Housing Characteristics

The studies by Tester (2006) and Galster and Constantine 

(1991) suggest that the characteristics of rental housing and 

the neighborhood in which it is located may be important 

indicators of what type of housing is inaccessible to families. 

7

 Abravanel’s 2005 survey sampled 1,029 adults nationally (Abravanel, 2006).
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 6

Local occupancy standards may restrict families with children 

from the smallest—and most affordable—units in the rental 

market, further reducing the total number of units available to 

families with children or forcing families to make tradeoffs in 

the location or quality of the units.

Moreover, Marans et al. (1980) found that the presence of 

restrictive policies and practices varied according to the size of 

the rental unit. Efficiencies and one-bedroom units were more 

likely than units of two or more bedrooms to have no-child 

policies. Large shares of two-bedroom units were closed to 

families with children: nearly one-fourth were unavailable to 

families with one child, one-third to families with two children, and 6 in 10 to families with three children. Nearly one 

in five (18 percent) managers of single-family detached rental 

housing did not rent to families with children, although as the 

size of the single-family rental home increased, the proportion 

of units excluding children decreased.

The literature also suggests that other market characteristics 

matter as well. Higher rents and newer units have been found 

to be positively associated with restrictive practices (Marans 

et al., 1980). Although the size of the apartment building 

or complex had no bearing on exclusionary policies, larger 

buildings or complexes were more likely than smaller ones 

to impose some kind of limitation on families with children. 

The racial composition of neighborhoods may also matter. In 

predominantly White neighborhoods, the share of units that 

excluded families with children was two-thirds greater than 

the share in predominantly African-American neighborhoods 

(29 versus 18 percent; Marans et al., 1980).

How Might Discrimination Against 

Families With Children Affect 

Childhood Development?

Housing discrimination can contribute to housing instability 

and the narrowing of housing options for families, and both 

these factors negatively affect children. Housing, especially 

stable, affordable housing, is important to children’s well-being. 

Having a high-quality affordable home enables families to 

spend a greater share of their incomes on nutritious food, 

health care, and other things that promote good health. It also 

contributes to greater residential stability (Wood, Turnham, 

and Mills, 2008), which limits the stress and trauma associated 

with frequent or unwanted moves (Cohen and Wardrip, 

2011) and prevents homelessness. Safe and stable housing also 

contributes to better educational outcomes (Brennan, 2011; 

Cohen, 2011).

Many studies of housing and children have focused on the effects 

or experiences of residential moves among low-income families 

with children. One study of low-income families living in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, and San Antonio, Texas, 

found that certain housing and neighborhood characteristics 

were associated with better reading skills and fewer emotional 

and behavioral problems among children. These characteristics 

included high cost, few housing problems and low neighborhood 

disorder, moderate residential instability, and homes that were 

mostly owner-occupied and private rentals (Coley, Leventhal, 

and Lynch, 2014). Another study found that not only are evictions commonplace in inner-city African-American neighborhoods but also that women are evicted at much higher rates than 

men (Desmond, 2012). Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork 

to explore the different kinds of mechanisms involved in these 

evictions, Desmond (2012: 117) concluded, “In inner-city black 

neighborhoods, women not only are overrepresented on leases 

but also are disadvantaged in relation to male leaseholders from 

similar neighborhoods. Broadly speaking, they bring in less income but pay more in rent. Many women’s incomes, moreover, 

are fixed, making them especially vulnerable to unexpected 

expenses. Their children can also cause landlords problems: 

damaging property, annoying neighbors, and attracting unwanted 

attention from state agencies.”

In their review, Sandstrom and Huerta (2013) found that children experiencing residential instability have worse academic 

and social outcomes, including weaker vocabulary skills, more 

problem behaviors, higher grade-retention and high school dropout rates, and lower adult educational attainment, than their 

residentially stable peers. Elementary school children are especially 

sensitive to poorer academic outcomes (as compared with younger, 

non-school-age children and adolescents), but residential instability is related to poor social development among children 

of all ages. Home and neighborhood quality, however, may mediate the effect of residential instability on children if housing 

moves lead to positive changes in children’s environments.

Family Renters in the American 

Housing Survey

The American Housing Survey is the most comprehensive national 

housing survey in the United States. Conducted biannually by 

HUD and the U.S. Census Bureau, AHS collects detailed information about housing units and the characteristics of individual 

occupants and also respondents’ assessments of housing and 

neighborhood quality and move-in dates that support estimates 

of length of stay in a given rental unit.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 7

The 2011 AHS Public Use Microdata on renter households 

nationally can be used to compare households with children 

and those without children.8 For this analysis, the presence of 

any individual less than the age of 18 in the unit constituted 

a family with a child, even if multiple households lived in 

a unit or the person less than age 18 was unrelated to the 

household head. This definition offers the greatest opportunity 

to examine the true picture of families covered by Fair Housing 

Amendments Act protections, because the relationship to the 

household head does not necessarily dictate the enforcement of 

discrimination against families with children.

We examined a variety of renter household characteristics 

(race/ethnicity, marital status, gender), housing characteristics 

(number of bedrooms and single-family versus multifamily 

units), and other housing outcomes (neighborhood quality and 

housing quality). Neither neighborhood quality nor housing 

quality (as perceived by the respondent) showed significant 

differences between families with and without children. We 

also looked at the housing market for owner-occupied and 

renter-occupied units and vacancy rates.

Household Characteristics

Households with children comprise approximately one-third 

(35 percent) of the rental market (exhibit 1). More than 55 

percent of households with children are headed by a person of 

color compared with about 40 percent of households without 

children. Larger shares of Hispanic and of non-Hispanic AfricanAmerican households account for the racial differences between 

renter households with and without children.

Households with children are also disproportionately headed 

by women (exhibit 1). The total rental market is nearly evenly 

split between male- and female-headed households (50.4 and 

49.6 percent, respectively). Women head 57.2 percent of households with children compared with 45.5 percent of those 

without children.

Exhibit 1 shows that unmarried household heads comprise a 

large share (70.5 percent) of the total rental housing market. 

Compared with households without children, however, households with children are more likely to have two adults in the 

household (18.2 versus 50.7 percent). Households with children 

are therefore likely to be larger.

On average, renter households with and without children have 

comparable annual household incomes (see exhibit 2). Slightly 

less than one-half of all renter households make less than $30,000 

a year. This income does not vary significantly for households 

with and without children; however, households with children 

have to make their finances stretch further because they have 

Exhibit 1. Household Characteristics of Renter Families With and Without Children

Total Households 

Without Children

Households 

With Children χ2

Sample 39,767 25,844 13,923

Weighted total (thousands) 31,021 20,209 10,811

Share of weighted total 100.0% 65.1% 34.9%

Race/ethnicity < 0.0001

Non-Hispanic White 56.3% 62.8% 44.2%

Non-Hispanic African-American 16.8% 15.9% 18.5%

Hispanic 19.4% 13.9% 29.7%

Non-Hispanic Asian 5.5% 5.4% 5.6%

Non-Hispanic other race 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Household head’s marital status < 0.0001

Married 29.5% 18.2% 50.7%

Unmarried 70.5% 81.8% 49.3%

Household head’s gender < 0.0001

Female 49.6% 45.5% 57.2%

Male 50.4% 54.5% 42.8%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

8

 The analysis included only households in the private market (that is, unsubsidized units) and households paying rent. Subsidized units and households living in 

them represent a unique subset of the rental market; rents are often inaccurately reported and might misrepresent the income and rent distribution of renter families. 

Furthermore, paired-testing studies, including this pilot study, generally exclude subsidized housing from the sample frame.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 8

Exhibit 2. Distribution of Annual Household Income for Renters With and Without Children

46 13 11 8 6 17

48 13 10 7 6 17

Households

with child

Households

with no child

Less than $30,000 $30,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $70,000 More than $70,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

60 70 80 90 100

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

to support more people in the household. About 88 percent 

of households with children support three or more people 

with their household income. By contrast, about 88 percent of 

households without children support only one or two people.

Housing Characteristics

Households with and without children have similar incomes 

(exhibit 2), but households with children spend more on rent 

(exhibit 3). About one-fourth of childless renter households 

spend less than $500 a month in rent, but less than one in five 

(18 percent) of renter households with children have rents 

that low. The differences in rent may be attributable to the 

preference of households with children to occupy larger and, 

thus, more expensive units, but they may be also partly the 

outcome of landlords steering families with children to larger 

units. In fact, further analyses of AHS data show that families 

with children tend to occupy larger units, and findings of the 

familial status pilot study suggest that landlord steering could 

be a contributing factor.

Exhibit 4 shows that families with children tend to occupy 

larger (two- and three-bedroom) units than families without 

children. Families with children occupy studio (0.3 percent) or 

one-bedroom (9 percent) apartments noticeably rarely. Families 

appear to frequently compete with childless households for twobedroom units; 42 percent of households with children and 41 

percent of households without children occupy this size unit. 

Compared with households without children, families with children more frequently occupy units with more than two bedrooms.

The type of rental unit differs significantly by familial status. 

Most rental units (60 percent) are in multifamily buildings; 

these units house 67 percent of renter households without children compared with 48 percent of households with children. 

Most (53 percent) renter households with children reside in 

single-family buildings, such as mobile homes, stand-alone 

single-family residences, or rowhouses.

The competition for two-bedroom units is more evident when 

we look at the share of the population in each sized unit by 

households with and without children (exhibit 5). Households 

with and without children also seem to compete for three-, four-, 

and five-bedroom units or larger in the market. Households 

without children dominate use of studio and one-bedroom 

units, even though these smaller units might be suitable for 

many families with children. For this reason, despite the small 

proportion of families with children in one-bedroom units, 

the pilot study on familial status discrimination included onebedroom units. By comparing the treatment of families with 

children with those without children when applying for onebedroom units, the research can assess whether discrimination 

contributes to the small number of families in one-bedroom units.

Residential occupancy standards may restrict where families 

with children are able to live. Residential occupancy standards 

are limits on the number of people permitted per dwelling unit, 

Exhibit 3. Distribution of Monthly Rents for Renters With and Without Children

Households

with child

Households

with no child

Less than $500/month $501 to $1,000/month $1,001 to $1,500/month

$1,500 to $2,000/month $2,000 to $2,500/month More than $2,500/month

18 53 20 6 2 1

25 50 17 5 2 2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

60 70 80 90 100

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 9

Exhibit 4. Number of Bedrooms and Type of Rental Unit for Renters With and Without Children

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

60 70 80 90 100

Households

with child

Households

with no child

Households

with child

Households

with no child

Single-family building Multifamily building

53 48

33 67

0.3

3 35 41 16 3 1

9 42 37 11 2

Studio One bedroom Two bedrooms Three bedrooms Four bedrooms Five or more bedrooms

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

Exhibit 5. Share of Households With and Without 

Children by Number of Bedrooms in Unit

Households with child

Studio One

bedroom

Two

bedrooms

Three

bedrooms

Four

bedrooms

Five 

or more

bedrooms

Households with no child

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

4.9

95.1

11.8

88.2

35.3

64.7

54.6

45.4

62.0

38.0

56.6

43.4

Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey 

Public Use Microdata

based on the size of the unit (typically “habitable space”). No 

federal law exists on residential occupancy standards. The Fair 

Housing Amendments Act permits state and local governments 

to set “reasonable” residential occupancy standards for health 

and safety.9 Landlords may also set residential occupancy limits 

that are more restrictive than those imposed by the government 

(under health and safety codes). It is possible that families with 

children may prefer smaller units than they actually occupy, 

but they may be hindered in their search by housing providers 

who are unwilling to rent small units if a family with a child 

might exceed their perception of appropriate occupancy limits. 

Thus, data showing the number of bedrooms in units families 

actually occupy (as seen in exhibit 5) may not accurately reflect 

the size of units families prefer to occupy. To assess the extent 

that families with children might be restricted in their choices, 

we use the number of occupants in a household to calculate the 

“minimum unit size” that would be considered appropriate under that standard given a two-persons-per-bedroom residential 

occupancy standard (exhibit 6).10

The upper row of exhibit 6 shows the smallest-size unit (by 

number of bedrooms) that households could occupy under a 

two-persons-per-bedroom residential occupancy standard and 

the lower row shows the number of bedrooms in units that 

households with children actually occupy. The exhibit shows 

9

 See 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1) and City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995).

10 Many housing providers use the two-persons-per-bedroom occupancy standard as their general rule on residential occupancy standards. The analysis in exhibit 6 

does not attempt to exceed this general rule. Note that a two-persons-per-bedroom occupancy standard might still violate the Fair Housing Amendments Act if a 

landlord counts only bedrooms as habitable space and additional space in the unit exists. For instance, if the landlord does not include habitable space in a basement 

or den, then he or she would underestimate the number of people who could live in the unit under a two-persons-per-bedroom standard.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 10

Exhibit 6. Minimum Number of Bedrooms Assuming a Two-Persons-per-Bedroom Standard Versus Actual 

Number of Bedrooms in Occupied Unit

Households

with child 

possible

Households

with child

actual

Studio One bedroom Two bedrooms Three bedrooms Four bedrooms Five or more bedrooms

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

60 70 80 90 100

13

0.1

0.3

60 23 3 1

9 42 37 11 2

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

that households with children end up selecting units with 

more bedrooms than the minimum occupancy standard. Of 

households with children, 60 percent could occupy a twobedroom unit, but only 42 percent of them select two-bedroom 

units. They instead opt for larger three- and four-bedroom units. 

Not all households with children choose to live in smaller units, 

of course, but the choice lets some families opt for better locations or use the rental saving of a smaller unit for other expenses. 

If landlords are imposing stricter occupancy standards than two 

persons per bedroom, then families with children will be further 

restricted in their housing choices.

As shown in exhibit 5, households with children tend to live in 

larger units. These units have correspondingly higher rents. In 

addition, families with children tend to have similar incomes to 

households without children, which suggests that families with 

children end up paying a higher percentage of their income on 

housing. Exhibit 7 shows, however, that families with children 

are only slightly more likely to be rent burdened than households without children (43 and 41 percent, respectively).11 Further, renter families with children are about as likely as families 

without children to be extremely rent burdened (spending 

more than 50 percent of their income on rent). This finding is 

unexpected in light of the fact that larger families live in larger 

units (exhibit 5), which tend to be more expensive.

Housing Market

Our preceding analysis shows that families with children are 

outnumbered by childless renters in the rental market, especially for smaller rental units. A close examination of the entire 

housing market (not only owner-occupied and renter housing 

units) also reveals that the larger units many families need are 

more likely to be owner occupied and thus less available in the 

rental market (see exhibit 8). In fact, three- and four-bedroom 

houses are more likely to be available for sale than for rent. This 

low availability puts renters with children at a disadvantage and 

leaves them competing with other types of renters for smaller, 

more affordable rental units. Large rental units also have much 

lower vacancy rates than other units.

In sum, since the passage of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments 

Act, it is illegal to discriminate against families with children in 

rental housing, but familial status complaints are still common. 

Exhibit 7. Rent Burden for Renter Households With and Without Children

Total Households 

Without Children

Households 

With Children χ2

Sample 39,767 25,844 13,923

Weighted total (thousands) 31,021 20,209 10,811

Share of weighted total 100.0% 65.1% 34.9%

Rent burden < 0.0001

No rent burden (< 30% of income) 58.3% 59.2% 56.6%

Rent burden (30 to 50% of income) 21.1% 20.0% 23.2%

Extreme rent burden (> 50% of income) 20.6% 20.8% 20.2%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

11 Rent burdened is typically defined as having rent that exceeds 30 percent of income.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 11

Exhibit 8. U.S. Housing by Unit Size

Number of 

Bedrooms

Housing

Stock

(%)

Occupied Rental

Vacancy

Rate

(%)

Vacant

Owner 

Occupied

(%)

Renter 

Occupied

(%)

Sum

(%)

Vacancies

for Rent by

Unit Size

(%)

Vacancies

for Sale Only

by Unit Size

 (%)

None (studio) 1.0 8.0 92.0 100.0 12.8 40.0 3.9

One 11.0 14.0 86.0 100.0 9.9 51.7 3.7

Two 26.0 46.0 54.0 100.0 9.8 35.0 8.7

Three 41.0 81.0 19.0 100.0 7.4 16.8 18.4

Four or more 20.0 88.0 12.0 100.0 5.7 11.8 24.8

Note: The rental vacancy rate is the number of vacant year-round units for rent as a percentage of the total rental inventory.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey Public Use Microdata

In addition to fairness concerns, discrimination against families 

with children could contribute to greater housing mobility and 

higher rent burdens for families, both of which are bad for 

child development. We know nearly nothing, however, about 

familial status discrimination in rental housing markets. This 

pilot study on discrimination against families with children in 

rental housing markets starts to fill this gap. To study familial 

status-based discrimination, we adapted the rigorous pairedtesting methods pioneered in the fight against racial segregation 

and used effectively to monitor trends in race- and ethnicitybased discrimination. The research design was informed by the 

small body of previous research that suggests race, ethnicity, 

and family composition influence experiences of familial status 

discrimination and by the AHS data presented in this chapter 

showing that a large share of renter households with children 

compete with childless households for available rental housing. 

The next chapter describes how the research tested for familial 

status discrimination and possible interactions with race, 

ethnicity, and family composition.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 12

Pilot Study Methods

To answer the research questions with paired testing, we needed 

to compare households with children and households without 

children and be able to observe variations by important factors, 

such as race and ethnicity. We developed a unique counterfactual 

(or comparison group) and a complex, elegant partial factorial 

design. The research design compares families with children 

with families who were otherwise the same but did not have 

children. Single mothers were compared with single women 

without children. Married couples with children were compared 

with married couples without children. To observe racial/ethnic 

differences and also consider marital status and household size, 

we developed a factorial design that enabled us to maximize 

the number of characteristics we could include while keeping 

sample sizes large enough to support the statistical analysis.

Overview of the Study Design

The pilot study adapted existing paired-testing protocols from 

the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study (HDS2012) on racial 

and ethnic minorities (Turner et al., 2013). The pilot study 

design required striking a balance between complexity (in terms 

of numbers and combinations of factors), feasibility, and cost 

efficiency. The final study design included the following elements:

• A paired-testing methodology.

• A design that reflected race/ethnicity, household size, 

children’s ages and sexes, one- versus two-parent family, 

and number of bedrooms.

• Three metropolitan testing sites.

• A total of 612 in-person tests and a slightly larger 

number of telephone tests (because not all telephone tests 

necessarily led to in-person tests).

• Counterfactuals (more on this follows), defined as—

 Single female childless households for testing femaleheaded single-parent families with children.

 Childless couple households for testing married/partnered 

families with children.

• Matching the paired testers on—

 Race/ethnicity.

 Sex.

 Age (group).

 Household income (income was aligned to the 

advertised rent).

 Length of time in previous unit.

• Use of one-, two-, and three-bedroom rental ads to generate 

sufficient in-person tests to satisfy sample size targets set 

forth in the partial factorial design.

• Integration of telephone and in-person testing.

The design has 54 cells representing all combinations of the 

following four dimensions:

1. Three racial/ethnic categories (African-American, Hispanic, 

White).

2. Three combinations of numbers of bedrooms and numbers 

of children (one bedroom with one child; two or three 

bedrooms with one child; two or three bedrooms with two 

children).

3. Three combinations of child age/sex (younger than 6 years 

of age; teen male; teen female).12

4. Two household head marital statuses (single female, married 

couple).

This design enabled us to test each combination of factors an 

average of 11.3 times to achieve an overall sample size of 612 

in-person tests and to combine cells (groups of tests) in various 

ways to examine potentially important variations by race/

ethnicity, child characteristics, and number of bedrooms.

Exhibit 9 shows the sample sizes for various subgroups of interest 

(all numbers are in-person paired tests). The design called for 

204 tests per site, 204 tests for each racial/ethnic group, and 

204 tests for each number of bedrooms and number of children 

category. The tests are equally divided (306) in each group 

among one- and two-parent families, and the three child age/

sex categories are also divided roughly equally with a slight 

preference allocated to the young child (216 tests) relative to 

the teen boy and teen girl (198 tests each) categories.

12 Teenager is defined as an adolescent age 12 to 17 years. Landlords may perceive male and female teenagers differently.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 13

Exhibit 9. Summary of In-Person Paired Tests by 

Factor

Factor In-Person Paired Tests (N)

Per site 204

Race/ethnicity

African-American 204

Hispanic 204

White 204

Marital status

Married couple 306

Single female parent 306

Bedroom/child

One bedroom/one child 204

Two to three bedrooms/one child 204

Two to three bedrooms/two children 204

Child’s age and sex

Younger child 216

Teen boy 198

Teen girl 198

Total 612

Counterfactual

A unique strength of paired testing is its ability to measure 

differential treatment of one tester versus another (the other 

half of the matched pair), with the only key difference between 

the two being the characteristic of interest (for example, race 

or, in this case, familial status). The tester with the characteristic that may be subject to discrimination (for example, being 

African-American or having a child) is known as the protected 

class tester, and the tester for the other half of the paired test 

(for example, the one who is White or childless) is known as 

the control tester. The control tester’s distinguishing characteristics are referred to as the counterfactual because they allow 

one to know what would happen if the key characteristics of 

interest were not present. Without this counterfactual, the study 

would have no effective comparisons and observers would 

have no way of knowing if the observed treatment of a rental 

housing seeker differs from another homeseeker who did not 

have the protected class characteristic (in this case, a child). A 

difference in treatment between the protected class tester and 

the control tester constitutes discrimination. Determining a 

reasonable counterfactual for a rental applicant who is part of 

a family with children is critical for testing for familial status 

discrimination.

Counterfactuals are relatively straightforward in the case of 

racial and ethnic minority discrimination testing: the attributes 

(age, sex, financial capacities) of a nonminority tester are 

matched to those of the minority tester, so the only difference 

between the two members of the tester pair is their race or 

ethnicity. A childless household with three, four, or more 

members, however, is fundamentally different from a household of the same size with children. Consider, for example, an 

approach in which the two households of the matched pair are 

the same size, but, in one case, some of the household members 

are children and, in the other, they are all adults. All other characteristics (for example, marital status, race/ethnicity, financial 

status) that might affect landlords’ perceptions and treatment of 

homeseekers are matched between the two households. Under 

this design, the counterfactual paired to a family with two 

adults and three children would be a household of five adults. 

This counterfactual is problematic for at least two reasons. First, 

it represents a household structure that is rarely seen in the 

United States: only 2 percent of all rental households have four 

or more adults and no children (American Community Survey 

[ACS] 2010). The situation becomes even more unusual when 

considering that we would want this five-adult household to 

have the same combined income as a married couple with three 

children. Second, having five adults in a household resembles 

a group quarters situation (for example, five immigrant adults 

or five college students sharing a house) or an extended family 

situation (for example, a household of related adults sharing 

quarters perhaps for reasons of economic hardship). In some 

jurisdictions, renting to a large group of unrelated adults violates 

residential occupancy standards. Similar incongruences emerge 

with most other family sizes and scenarios. A paired-testing 

methodology for families with children that holds household 

size constant yields an inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparison; it simply lacks face validity.

Our analysis of American Community Survey (ACS) and AHS 

data comparing households with and without children found 

that childless renters (who compete with renter families in the 

housing market) are mostly singles and couples, as opposed 

to larger groups of childless adults. For this pilot study, the 

counterfactuals for families with children are childless singles 

and childless couples. To be more specific, for single-parent 

female-headed households, we made the counterfactual a childless single female, and for married couples with one or two 

children, the counterfactual was a childless married couple.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 14

Family Characteristics

A variety of characteristics may affect how families with 

children are treated in the rental housing market, and it was 

important to build those characteristics into the design of this 

pilot study so we could empirically examine if and how they 

mattered. Evidence from previous studies and from experts 

and practitioners suggests that the most important variables 

to study are the race, ethnicity, and marital status of the 

household head and the age, sex, and number of children in 

the household.

Race/ethnicity and marital status. Given the history of racial 

and ethnic discrimination in housing, the pilot study examined 

family-based discrimination separately for three racial/ethnic 

groups: African-American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White 

groups. This factor is complicated because people hold different perceptions of race and ethnicity, and this characteristic is 

the basis for discriminatory behaviors. The racial and ethnic 

identity of a tester presents a challenge if a housing provider 

or rental agent does not perceive or identify this characteristic 

accurately or identifies the race or ethnicity of both members 

of a matched pair as the same. As in previous housing discrimination studies (HDSs), the racial and ethnic identifiability 

of testers (over the telephone and in person) was studied 

separately to verify that this characteristic was identifiable.13

Marital status may also be important when parents seek rental 

housing, so some testers were single parents, and all single 

parents were women. We did not include single male parents 

because they account for only one in five rentals of one- to 

three-bedroom units among all single-parent families.14

Age, sex, and number of children. The age and sex of the 

children may also play a role in whether landlords perceive 

families with children as more or less desirable tenants. These 

characteristics may also affect what kind of housing a landlord 

thinks is suitable for a given family. Our design needed to 

thoughtfully incorporate different family compositions to test 

this hypothesis. The panel recommended that the pilot study 

include families with young children (less than 6 years old) 

and teens (12 to 17 years old). Because teen boys may be 

perceived differently than teen girls, this factor was also varied 

in the study, but the panel thought that sex of the child was less 

important in the case of the younger children.

Because the potential number of combinations of factors was 

high, we restricted the tests to families with one or two children, and, for all the two-child tests, the children were of the 

same sex, meaning both were girls or both were boys.15

Housing Characteristics

A key feature of the pilot study was the size of the rental apartments that testers would seek. Background analysis revealed 

that four in five (79 percent) renter families reside in two- or 

three-bedroom units, 8 percent live in one-bedroom units, 

and 12 percent occupy units with four or more bedrooms. 

Further, this distribution does not vary much by number of 

children. Among families with one child, only 11 percent 

occupy one-bedroom units, and, among families with three or 

more children, only 23 percent occupy units with four or more 

bedrooms.

Despite the low share of families with children in one-bedroom 

units, this size unit was included to test the hypothesis that 

families with children are steered away from one-bedroom 

units. One possible reason so few families occupy these units 

is that they are in such high demand (given their affordability 

relative to larger apartments) that landlords can easily rent them 

to childless renters. In other words, data on where families live 

may reflect ongoing discriminatory practices, so we should interpret them with care. The pilot study design used one-, two-, 

and three-bedroom unit rental ads to generate tests, because 

these unit sizes account for 80 percent of family rentals. For 

simplicity, two- and three-bedroom units were combined into a 

single group in the partial factorial design.16

One concern with including one-bedroom units was whether 

notions of residential occupancy standards would complicate 

our finding, which raised another question: Should tests allow 

for more than two people per bedroom? Some landlords think 

local laws limit occupancy to two persons per bedroom, even 

13 Not only stereotypical individuals were hired as testers. Identifiability falls on a continuum and, as we expected, we were able to recruit individuals who were 

identifiable in terms of appearance and linguistic style without being at the extreme. To examine identifiability as a part of the analysis, a picture and voice recording 

were collected and provided to Urban Institute staff after the completion of testing. Staff outside the research team were then surveyed to assess the identifiability of 

testers.

14 Including single male parents would have also increased detection risks, because these families are much less common.

15 These restrictions simplified the testing because of sample size considerations.

16 As with some of the other factors, the pilot study sample size necessitated this simplification.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 15

though this limitation may not be the case, and others may use 

the two-persons-per-bedroom limit as an excuse for excluding 

families with children. Actual occupancy standards vary by 

local jurisdiction and typically can rely on the number of 

bedrooms and/or the square footage of the unit as a whole. 

In some instances, landlords might set residential occupancy 

standards that are more restrictive than those required by the 

government without violating the Fair Housing Act.17

Because the central purpose of this study was to measure differential treatment of renter households based on the presence 

of children—not to assess landlord adherence to varying and 

potentially complex residential occupancy standards—we 

decided to simplify the pilot study design by capping the 

number of children in a family at two children and limiting 

the one-bedroom tests to either single or married parents with 

only one child. Thus, two-child families would never seek a 

one-bedroom unit. Even under this scenario, married couples 

with one child might stretch a landlord’s perception of residential occupancy standards, because a family of three would 

be seeking a one-bedroom unit. If large shares of landlords are 

using residential occupancy standards as an excuse to exclude 

families with children or believe such families violate the 

standards, the results of the one-bedroom tests should show 

this discriminatory practice.

Site Selection

The pilot study was conducted in three metropolitan markets, 

with two racial/ethnic groups assigned to each one. This 

approach simplified the design and target tests in each place 

to two racial/ethnic categories, easing implementation while 

ensuring more than one site was covered for each racial/ethnic 

group. As a result, it was possible to distinguish the roles of 

site and race/ethnicity in observed differential treatment. The 

pilot study included three metropolitan areas:

1. Dayton, Ohio, for African-American and White testing.

2. Dallas, Texas, for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White testing.

3. Los Angeles, California, for African-American and 

Hispanic testing.

The sites were selected to cover different regions of the country 

and to contain sufficient population to keep the risk of detection 

to a reasonably low level. Each site was allocated 204 in-person 

paired tests (612 tests in all). Given the design, all tests could 

be used to estimate headline measures of discrimination against 

families with children and for statistically identifying which 

sociodemographic factors might be important for future national 

studies of this form of discrimination.

Within metropolitan areas, we used the same method employed 

for HDS2012 on racial and ethnic minorities (Turner et al., 

2013) in terms of sampling rental ads in direct proportion to 

the geographic distribution of rental housing (see appendix A 

for ad sampling information). This testing method reflected the 

entire local rental market. Spatial analyses show these tests to 

be widely distributed across each metropolitan area (see maps 

in appendix B).

Telephone Versus In-Person Testing

In addition to testing for housing discrimination against families 

with children, this pilot study had the goal of assessing the feasibility and cost implications of alternative data collection methods, 

including e-mail, telephone, and in-person testing. Our recent 

experience with HDS2012 showed that tests that began with 

e-mail contact often required a followup telephone call to the 

landlord to gather information about the available unit and to 

make an appointment; given the limited sample size in the pilot 

study, e-mail tests were eliminated as a factor in our design.

The final design called for all tests to begin with a telephone call 

during which testers would attempt to gather as much information as possible for a complete test, followed by full in-person 

tests (in which the same information would be gathered along 

with additional observational measures). This nesting of a 

telephone test within the in-person test (a full telephone test 

before a full in-person test) provided efficiencies that allowed 

for larger sample sizes to be obtained for both sets of tests. The 

telephone and in-person tests involved many of the same outcome measures, and the only measures unique to the in-person 

tests had to do with observations or inspections of actual units. 

This nested design enabled us to explore the marginal benefit of 

an in-person visit or test and to compare the measures common 

to both sets of tests.18

17 Investigation into residential occupancy standards in the pilot study sites found that jurisdictions restrict occupancy based on a unit’s “habitable space” and most 

often use standards set by the International Building Code Standards or the Uniform Building Code. The specification for bedroom size typically is 70 square feet 

for the first person to occupy a bedroom and 50 square feet for every additional person. In addition to restrictions on bedroom size, restrictions are also in place for 

the overall square footage of the unit. The initial requirement for a one-person occupancy is 150 square feet, with an additional 100 square feet required for each 

additional occupant. If a jurisdiction uses the number of bedrooms as a measure of maximum occupancy, then the most common formula is two occupants per 

bedroom plus one. That is, a one-bedroom apartment could have three occupants, and a two-bedroom apartment could have five occupants.

18 This approach assumes that having in-person tests preceded by telephone calls asking for the same information does not influence the results of the in-person tests.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 16

Information on the testing protocols and field implementation 

challenges is in appendix C, and pilot study test forms used to 

collect data are in appendix D. Appendix E lists the analysis 

variables the testers collected during the telephone calls and 

site visits.

Other Design Features

Several variables that might affect prevalence of familial status 

discrimination, including building type, landlord type, rent 

level, and timing of fieldwork, were considered but were 

ultimately not incorporated into the partial factorial design. 

The availability of different types of units primarily reflects 

the local rental housing market at the time of testing. In fact, 

there is no guarantee that sufficient counts of rental housing 

by structure and landlord type could be found in a condensed 

data collection period. Moreover, including landlord status 

would require that rental housing ads be screened for landlord 

type, which would be an unusual occurrence and a potential 

threat to both tester disclosure and test validity. It would also 

be very costly. For all these reasons, we excluded these factors 

in the study design. As a result, the distributions of these 

two housing factors across the tests are in proportion to their 

prevalence in the rental housing market.

Rent levels were also not a factor in the design. Despite the 

high levels of cost burden among family renters, the pilot study 

used the same approach used in previous paired-testing studies 

of examining the incidence of discrimination in the context 

of the available housing stock. In other words, we sampled 

ads from all available rental ads spanning the 5th to the 95th 

percentile of rents in a given metropolitan area and had the 

protected class tester (with one or two children) inquire about 

renting housing from those units. We assigned the protected 

class tester and the matched control tester financial characteristics that made them equally well qualified for the rental 

property. This approach enabled us to answer this question: 

What levels of discrimination exist when a person in a protected class inquires about available housing? Had we limited the 

sample of rental housing ads to those within a narrower price 

range, we would have excluded a substantial portion of the 

rental housing market (in which discrimination may occur). 

Moreover, we would have deviated from established practice 

within the field of housing discrimination research, which 

might have compromised the face validity of the findings and 

our ability to compare them with findings from other HDSs.

Another consideration, given the study’s focus on families, was 

the timing of the fieldwork and whether families with children 

tend to move during the summer months to avoid disrupting 

their children’s school attendance. Marlay and Fields’s (2010) 

analysis of ACS data found that during the winter, spring, and 

fall of 2004, 21 to 24 percent of adults with children less than 

age 18 moved into their homes each season, and 30 percent 

moved into their homes during the summer. Thus, although 

more families do move during the summer, two out of three 

move at other times of the year, and they tend to do so in a 

roughly uniform pattern by season. This finding gave us more 

confidence and flexibility with respect to timing pilot study 

data collection in the field.

Analytical Approach to Estimating 

Differences in Treatment

Overall Estimates

For the full set of 612 in-person tests, we report estimates of 

differential treatment for every measure of the tester-rental 

agent interaction. The estimates are based on data from the 

in-person component of the tests, which corresponds to our 

previous paired-testing studies. One exception is the ability 

to obtain an appointment, which can come only from the 

telephone component of the tests.

The study was designed to assess the prevalence of differential 

treatment in various indicators, such as being able to reach a 

rental agent, obtain information about the rental unit, get an 

appointment to see the unit, and meet with a rental agent. For 

testers who were able to meet with an agent, measures included 

being told any units were available, how many units they were 

told were available, the size of the units, and the monthly rent 

of the units. To measure average differences in treatment across 

a large number of tests, paired-testing studies use gross and net

measures of discrimination. Because it is possible for either of 

the testers in a paired-testing study to be treated more favorably 

than the other or for them to be treated equally, each measure 

was looked at in three ways: (1) the share of tests in which the 

control tester was favored, (2) the share of tests in which the 

protected class tester (the tester with children) was favored, and 

(3) the difference in these shares. The first measure, the share 

of tests in which the control tester is favored, is known as a 

gross measure of discrimination against families with children. 

This measure overstates the extent of systematic preference for 

this group if nondiscriminatory random events are responsible 

for a portion of the differential treatment observed. The second 

measure, the share of tests in which the protected class tester is 

favored, is the gross measure of favorable treatment for families 

with children. This measure estimates the extent of systemic 

preferences that favor families with children.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 17

The third measure, the difference in the two shares, is the net

measure of discrimination. For a given outcome, the net measure provides a direct estimate of the degree of disadvantage in 

the rental markets for homeseekers with children. It understates 

the true level of discrimination against families with children 

if any systematic preference exists for families with children. 

For outcomes that can be measured in amounts (for example, 

dollar rent amount or number of rental units shown), we report 

the averages (means) for the control testers and the protected 

class testers and the difference in these two averages, which 

provides the measure of the severity of discrimination. Because 

the difference compares outcomes of tests in response to the 

same set of ads, it represents a meaningful measure of differential treatment of families with children compared with childless 

households.

Like statistical samples are typically handled, our full-sample 

estimates of discrimination are weighted to correspond to the 

actual sociodemographic profile of the three metropolitan areas 

where the pilot study took place.19 In this way, our estimates 

more accurately represent the populations from which the 

statistical samples were drawn.

Estimates by Subgroup and Mode of 

Testing

To estimate how the differential treatment of testers with 

children varied with characteristics of families and units, we 

estimated a series of multivariate regression models by using 

data from the in-person portions of the tests.20 A separate 

model was estimated for each outcome of interest.21

Each model takes the following form:

Difference in treatmenti

= a0 + b1 blacki + b2Hispanici + b3 marriedi + b4 (one bedroom)i

 + b5 (one child)i + b6 teen malei + b7 teen femalei + b8 site2i

 + b9 site3i + residuali

where the dependent variable is the difference in treatment 

for the two testers in test i. For binary yes-no outcomes, such 

as whether each tester was offered an incentive, the difference

was defined as 1 if only the tester without children received 

the offer, -1 if only the tester with children received the offer, 

and 0 if neither or both testers received the offer (that is, 

neither tester was favored). For continuous outcomes, such as 

the number of units available, the difference was defined as 

the number of units available for the control tester minus the 

number of units available for the protected class tester.

The independent variables take the value 1 if the characteristic 

is true for a given test and 0 if it is not true; blacki equals 1 if 

conducted by African-American testers, and Hispanici equals 1 

if conducted by Hispanic testers; teen maleiequals 1 if the 

tester with children claimed to have one or two teenage male 

children. The other variables follow the same pattern.

The comparison of differential treatment against families with 

children for two subgroups can be obtained directly from the 

coefficients of this regression model. The regression coefficients 

measure the average difference in differential treatment for 

the group indicated (for example, African-American group) 

as compared with the group not included in the model (for 

example, White group). For subgroups based on race, the 

difference between the net discrimination against families with 

children for all tests with African-American testers and the net 

discrimination for all tests with White testers is measured by 

the coefficient b1.

The differential for each group is measured by comparison with 

the differential for the omitted (or reference) group. Suppose, 

for example, White testers without children saw an average of 

0.3 more units per visit than White testers with children, and 

African-American testers without children saw 0.1 more units 

than African-American testers with children. The model coefficient 

on African-American (b1) would be negative 0.2 (-0.2). If Hispanic testers without children saw 0.5 more units than Hispanic 

testers with children, the model coefficient on Hispanic (b2) 

would equal +0.2. We can assess whether differential treatment 

of families with children is the same for African-American and 

White testers by testing whether the coefficient b1 is equal to 0. 

We can test whether African-American and Hispanic testers 

are equally likely to experience familial status discrimination 

by testing whether b1 = b2. The regression output from the Stata 

statistical package provides all information needed to perform 

this kind of test, including appropriate confidence intervals.

19 The weights were developed using the ACS 5-year estimates for renter households with children totaled across the three metropolitan areas by using the following 

criteria: households have one or two children and are renting in one of the three metropolitan statistical areas; household head is African-American, White, or 

Hispanic; household head is married or an unmarried female; and rental unit is one bedroom with one child or two or three bedrooms.

20 The models were estimated using ordinary least squares.

21 Two exceptions are “obtaining an appointment” and “number of units inspected,” because these outcomes are limited to the telephone call and in-person visit 

portions of the test, respectively. These outcomes were modeled separately using the relevant data.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 18

The comparisons of demographic and unit subgroups included 

the following:

• African-American versus White (test whether b1 = 0).

• Hispanic versus White (test whether b2 = 0).

• African-American versus Hispanic (test whether b1 = b2).

• Married versus single parent (test whether b3 = 0).

• Two- or three-bedroom unit with two children versus 

two- or three-bedroom unit with one child (test whether 

b4 + b5 = b5).

• Two- or three-bedroom unit with one child versus 

one-bedroom unit with one child (test whether b5 = 0).

• Teen males versus young child (test whether b6 = 0).

• Teen females versus young child (test whether b7 = 0).

• Teen females versus teen males (test whether b6 = b7).

• Teen versus young child (test whether b6 = b7 = 0).

Because we were uncertain of the direction of the differences 

between population subgroups, each coefficient was tested 

using a two-tailed significance test.

Comparing the demographic groups by using regression 

methods had several advantages. First, it enabled us to control 

for any unintended relationships between the assigned demographic characteristics that could confound the comparisons. 

Recall that the assignments were designed so that no one 

characteristic was related to other characteristics. In reality, 

however, we expected that some relationships between characteristics would result from implementation practices or from 

differential ability to meet with an agent (the regression model 

controls for such relationships). Second, using a regression 

model enabled us to estimate the precision of the difference 

in discrimination between groups. Third, this approach also 

enabled us to obtain more precise estimates by comparing the 

subgroup averages, controlling for the demographic and unit 

assignment of each test. Including such controls reduces the 

standard error of the regression model and, in turn, increases 

the precision of each comparison.

Comparing Costs of Units

For this pilot study, we created a measure of the differential 

treatment in the rent and net cost of comparable units. The 

measure for all units told about, a factor that was emphasized in 

previous testing studies, includes any differential in rent resulting from being told about larger units. The new size-adjusted 

measure attempts to measure the difference in rent asked for 

similar-sized units.

To calculate the size-adjusted rent (that is, rent adjusted for 

number of bedrooms), for each test we first calculated the average 

rent and number of units by size (no bedrooms, one bedroom, 

two bedrooms, and three bedrooms) for the tester with and 

without children. For a given test, the average rent for each 

sized unit was weighted by the distribution of the number of 

units for the two testers across sizes of units. The estimate of 

differential treatment using this size-adjusted measure excludes 

the differential resulting from testers having been told about 

different sizes of units.

Indicators of Differential Treatment

One strength of paired testing is its ability to capture large 

amounts of information about interactions with housing providers. This ability includes being able to look at subtle differences in treatment. Testers recorded virtually every aspect of 

their interaction with a housing provider. These test indicators 

fall into two broad categories: (1) indicators that ensure the 

testers followed protocols and (2) indicators used to analyze 

differential treatment. The severity of differential treatment 

depends on which indicators show families with children being 

treated differently than matched childless renters. For example, 

outright denials for an appointment or being quoted a higher 

rent have a fundamentally different effect than would differences 

in being offered a business card at the end of an appointment.

Past paired-testing studies documenting housing discrimination 

generally measure differential treatment at the various stages of 

the housing search process. These stages include initial inquiry, 

meeting the housing provider, and seeing a unit.22

Door slamming, one of the most blatant forms of discrimination, 

typically happens at the point of initial inquiry. It occurs in a 

number of different ways, including not making an appointment 

when a unit is available, canceling appointments, or not showing the unit when a renter has come for an appointment. Such 

deliberate denial of access to a housing unit is one of the most 

severe forms of differential treatment.

Discrimination can also occur when housing providers offer 

different terms or conditions for leasing a unit. This practice 

is often harder for renters to detect and can cause them to 

pay higher rents or select a different unit. Indicators of the 

condition of the lease focus primarily on the financial cost of 

renting, and we therefore classified them as financial indicators. 

The primary factors we looked at included differences in rent, 

security deposit, or surety bond and any incentives or fees. 

Differences in these financial factors can be severe and result 

22 A list of the analysis indicators for the study is in appendix E.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 19

in homeseekers paying more for less or having to find more 

affordable options. The length of the lease offered may also 

affect a renter’s decision, but its effect is unclear.

Housing providers can also limit the number of units shown 

or show units of lesser quality or sizes as a way to discourage 

renters. These practices can have a negative effect by limiting 

the rental options available to a family and making housing 

searches longer and more expensive. They are not as detrimental as door slamming, but they are discriminatory and illegal.

Other indicators that could show differential treatment include 

landlord comments about the neighborhood, schools, or 

amenities. These comments are often hard to interpret, and 

although they may limit access to a particular unit, the landlord may in fact be attempting to provide information rather 

than steer a renter away from renting their unit. Differential 

treatment in landlord comments about the neighborhood, 

schools, and amenities varied, and, as in past studies they were 

difficult to interpret.

Because we collected the same information in the same way 

on the telephone and in person, for most indicators we can 

compare the results, particularly for those indicators that would 

constitute the most severe differential treatment. An exception 

occurred when a particular indicator required the tester to 

physically observe the unit. In those cases, testers collected 

information in person but not over the telephone. Our findings 

from the three sites included in this pilot study are reported in 

the next chapter.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 20

Pilot Study Findings

Overall, this pilot study shows that 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 with a 

rental agent and learn about at least one available housing unit. 

Families with children were told about larger units on average 

than childless households inquiring about the same-size units, 

were quoted correspondingly higher rents, and were shown 

fewer units than families without children. For every six 

in-person visits to housing providers, families with children 

were shown one fewer rental unit (0.18 fewer units per visit 

when both testers were told a unit was available) compared 

with homeseekers without children. After adjusting for 

differences in number of bedrooms per unit, the overall rent, 

fees, and financial incentives did not differ significantly for 

homeseekers with and without children. The overall finding of 

being shown fewer units and being steered to somewhat larger 

and more expensive units, however, constrained the housing 

options of homeseekers with children.

The pilot study also examined variations in family discrimination based on race and ethnicity, family composition, and 

housing unit size. In brief, the questions we asked and the 

answers we found are as follows:

• Are families of color more likely to experience discrimination based on the presence of children than White 

families? The study found no evidence that discrimination 

against families with children varies with race or ethnicity.

• Are families with two children more likely to experience 

discrimination based on the presence of children than onechild families? This factor did make a difference: compared 

with one-child families, two-child families were shown 

slightly fewer units and units with slightly higher rents.

• Do the ages or sexes of the children affect the likelihood of 

discrimination against families with children? No differences were evident in the likelihood of discrimination for 

the three combinations of ages and sexes included in the 

study (a child younger than age 6, without specifying the 

sex; a teen female; a teen male).

• Does the marital status of the renter affect the likelihood 

of discrimination against families with children? Testers 

presenting as single female heads of household and testers 

presenting themselves as being married were equally likely 

to reach an agent, get an appointment, and be shown a unit.

• Does the size of the apartment unit (one versus two or three 

bedrooms) affect how families with children are treated 

in the rental housing market relative to families without 

children? When comparing the experience of renters with 

and without children, we observe larger differences for the 

paired tests involving one-bedroom tests than those involving two- or three-bedroom tests. These larger differences 

are observed for four outcomes: (1) the ability to obtain 

any information over the phone about an advertised unit, 

(2) whether the tester is told about any unit being available, 

(3) whether the tester is told about the requested-size unit 

being available, and (4) the average number of units of the 

requested-size unit being available. In short, there was more 

evidence of differential treatment among the one-bedroom 

tests than the tests involving two or three bedrooms.

Overall Estimates of Discrimination

Exhibit 10 presents estimates of summary measures for both the 

telephone and in-person paired tests. These summary measures 

are a select group of measures that have been used in past HDSs. 

Because they are summary measures, some of the measures in 

exhibit 10 are repeated in subsequent exhibits. Large statistically 

significant estimates indicate severe discrimination.

Looking at exhibit 10, we see that most prospective renters 

with and without children were able to reach an agent, obtain 

information about housing, and make an appointment to meet 

with a rental agent in person.23 As shown in the upper panel of 

exhibit 10, in 98 percent of telephone tests, both testers in the 

matched pairs were able to speak with an agent about available 

housing; in 98 percent of tests, both testers were able to obtain 

information from a rental agent; and, in 96 percent of tests, 

both testers were able to make an in-person appointment. The 

differences in these rates are quite small and not statistically 

different from zero.

23 As discussed in the previous chapter, the overall findings are weighted to adjust for disproportionate inclusion of groups based on race and ethnicity, marital status, 

number of bedrooms in housing units, and number of children in the test design.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 21

Exhibit 10. Estimates of Family-Based Discrimination—Summary Measures

Measures of Differential Treatment Both Without 

Children

With 

Children Difference SE N

Telephone Tester able to reach an agent 98.1% 0.3% 0.6% – 0.3% 0.3% 664

Tester able to obtain information 98.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.5% 641

Tester able to get an appointment 95.9% 0.8% 1.2% – 0.4% 0.6% 664

In person Tester able to meet with an agent 99.8% 0.0% 0.2% – 0.2% 0.2% 619

If able to meet with an agent

Tester told any units available 95.7% 1.9% 2.0% – 0.1% 1.2% 615

Tester told about more units 28.9% 25.1% 3.8% 4.0% 615

Tester told about more units (of requested 

number of bedrooms)

25.9% 23.1% 2.7% 3.8% 615

Average number of units tester was told 

were available

1.95 1.85 0.10 0.07 615

If told about any units

Tester told about a different unit size 

(number of bedrooms)

4.5% 13.6% – 9.1%*** 2.3% 590

Average unit size (number of bedrooms) 1.87 1.94 – 0.06*** 0.01 590

Average square footage of units 1,001 1,023 – 22*** 7 567

Tester told about only larger units (than the 

requested number of bedrooms) 

0.6% 2.7% 2.1%** 0.8% 590

Average rent $1,311 $1,325 – $13* $7 590

Average rent (controlling for number of 

bedrooms) 

$1,341 $1,336 $5 $4 546

Tester shown more units 30.1% 23.0% 7.1%* 4.1% 590

Average number of units shown 1.83 1.65 0.18** 0.07 590

SE = standard error of the difference.

*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .01 level.

The middle panel of exhibit 10 (If able to meet with an agent) 

shows that at the in-person meeting with the rental agent, both 

testers were told about at least one available unit 96 percent 

of the time. Differences in treatment for these availability 

measures are not statistically significant.

Renters with children were told about larger units (both in terms 

of number of bedrooms and square footage) more often on 

average than childless applicants inquiring about the same-size 

units and were quoted correspondingly higher rents, as shown 

in the lowest panel of exhibit 10 (If told about any unit). The 

number of bedrooms available to renters with children was 

greater than that available to those without children by 0.06 

bedrooms per inquiry; the average square footage of the units 

available to those with children was more than that of the units 

available to renters without children by 22 square feet. These 

differences translate into renters with children being told about 

one additional bedroom for every 17 inquiries. Renters with 

children were also more likely to be told only about units with 

more bedrooms. These differences translate into renters with 

children being quoted rents $13 per month higher than renters 

without children; this difference goes away when we control 

for the number of bedrooms the tester was told about. Testers 

with children were shown fewer units; the difference translates 

into renters with children being shown one less unit for every 

six in-person visits.

Differences in the financial terms of available housing are presented in exhibit 11. For most of these indicators, the differences 

between renters with and without children are not statistically 

significant. One clear difference is seen in whether the tester was 

told about an incentive of some kind. Compared with renters 

who have children, those without children were told about incentives in 5.5 percent more tests. For other measures, such as 

rent, security deposit, and net costs (all adjusted for the number 

of bedrooms), no statistically significant differences are found 

between what testers with and without children were told.

Exhibit 12 shows that renters with children were shown fewer 

units than those without children. Testers with children were 

equally likely to be shown at least one unit, but testers without 

children were shown more units in 30 percent of the tests, and 

testers with children were shown more units in 23 percent 

of tests; this difference is statistically significant. On average, 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 22

Exhibit 11. Financial Indicators for Discrimination in the Rental Market Against Families With Children

Measures of Differential Treatment Both Without 

Children

With

Children Difference SE N

Rent and security deposit Tester told higher renta 8.9% 7.3% 1.7% 2.2% 546

Average renta $1,341 $1,336 $5 $4 546

Average rent $1,311 $1,324 – $13* $7 591

Tester told a security deposit requireda 93.6% 2.1% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 590

Tester told about a higher security deposita 10.1% 13.1% – 2.9% 2.8% 542

Average security deposita $580 $582 – $2 $24 542

Leasing Tester offered month-to-month lease 2.0% 4.7% 3.3% 1.4% 1.5% 590

Tester offered 2-year lease 0.4% 2.8% 1.8% 1.0% 1.0% 590

Fees and incentives Tester told fees required for any unit 46.5% 8.3% 9.9% – 1.6% 2.4% 590

Tester told higher fees than partner 19.8% 24.4% – 4.5% 3.8% 590

Average fees for any unit $156 $182 – $26 $16 590

Tester told about incentives 32.0% 12.2% 6.7% 5.5%** 2.5% 590

Tester told about more incentives 20.1% 17.0% 3.1% 3.4% 590

Average amount of incentives $276 $277 – $1 $30 590

Net cost Tester told a higher yearly costa 11.1% 12.9% – 1.8% 2.8% 546

Average yearly net costa $16,614.25 $16,588.23 $26.01 $63.87 546

SE = standard error of the difference.

a

Controlling for number of bedrooms.

*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level.

Note: For all measures, the tester was told a unit was available.

Exhibit 12. Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators of Discrimination in the Rental Market Against Families With 

Children

Measures of Differential Treatment Both Without Children With Children Difference SE N

Tester shown any units 91.5% 3.6% 2.6% 1.0% 1.5% 590

Tester shown more units 30.1% 23.0% 7.1%* 4.1% 590

Average number of units shown (of any size) 1.83 1.65 0.18** 0.07 590

If any units shown

Tester shown any unit without any problems 93.0% 3.1% 3.3% – 0.2% 1.4% 554

Tester saw more problems per unit 6.0% 4.7% 1.3% 1.7% 554

Average number of problems per unit 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.02 554

SE = standard error of the difference.

*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level.

Note: For all measures, the tester was told a unit was available.

testers with children were shown 0.18 fewer units per visit 

than testers without children (when both testers were told a 

unit was available). Testers with children were shown an average of 1.65 units, and testers without children were shown an 

average of 1.83 units. In other words, for every six in-person 

visits to housing providers, families with children were shown 

one less rental unit than those without children. No differences 

appear in whether and how often problems were seen when 

renters with and without children inspected rental units.

When both testers met with an agent, no significant treatment 

differences were noted in terms of the comments that agents 

made to the testers (see exhibit 13). The same is true for comments made over the telephone, except for comments relating 

to occupancy standards. Rental agents were more likely to make 

remarks about occupancy standards to testers with children: 

they mentioned a two-persons-per-bedroom policy and the 

legality of renting a one-bedroom unit to three occupants.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 23

Exhibit 13. Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for Discrimination in the Rental Market Against Families With 

Children

Measures of Differential Treatment Both

(%)

Without Children

(%)

With Children

(%)

Difference

(%) SE N

If testers met with an agent

Agent made remarks about children 0.1 3.1 4.4 – 1.3 1.6 615

Agent made remarks about their specific 

household composition

0.1 1.8 2.3 – 0.5 1.0 615

Agent made remarks about occupancy standards 0.0 0.7 1.3 – 0.6 0.6 615

Agent made remarks about fair housing 0.0 0.2 0.3 – 0.1 0.2 615

If told about any unit

Agent suggested application was necessary 99.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 593

Agent suggested an application fee was needed 95.5 1.9 0.5 1.4 0.9 590

Agent suggested credit check must be completed 

as part of an application

98.6 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 593

Agent suggested background check must be 

completed as part of an application

40.7 15.5 12.8 2.7 3.0 593

Agent requested information about tester’s credit 

standing

0.0 2.5 2.3 0.2 1.3 593

Agent requested information about tester’s rental 

history

1.5 6.4 7.1 – 0.7 2.0 593

Agent requested information about tester’s income 0.5 1.6 1.3 0.3 1.1 593

Agent provided tester(s) listings, floor plan, 

brochure, and so forth

79.3 6.4 7.3 – 0.9 2.0 593

Agent provided tester(s) more total items 36.4 30.0 6.4 4.6 593

Agent suggested arrangements for future contact 52.0 18.1 17.2 0.9 3.4 593

Agent made positive remarks 22.8 19.7 18.6 1.1 3.4 593

Agent made more positive remarks 27.8 25.6 2.2 4.2 593

Agent made negative remarks 0.0 0.5 1.2 – 0.7 0.7 593

Agent made more negative remarks 0.5 1.2 – 0.7 0.7 593

Tester received followup from agent 16.4 12.2 10.6 1.6 2.4 592

SE = standard error of the difference.

Estimates of Discrimination by Family 

Characteristics

An important goal of this study was to explore whether discrimination against families with children plays out differently 

for different subgroups of families with children or for different 

rental unit types. Families are diverse in their racial and ethnic 

identities and in their structure and the housing they seek. It is 

possible that rental agents treat certain families with children 

differently than others. To capture some of these differences, 

various family and unit characteristics were built into the 

partial factorial design of the pilot study. With all the data in 

hand, our goal was to assess whether certain factors matter (or 

if one factor matters more than another). This examination was 

done using multivariate regression models, which estimate the 

effects of each factor on a given outcome while simultaneously 

controlling for the influence of the other factors. The outcomes 

are the summary measures reported in exhibit 10.

Exhibit 14 presents the results of our multivariate analysis with 

the predictor variables (variables that might influence the likelihood of experiencing familial status-based discrimination) listed 

in the far-left column. The top row represents the overall effect 

for each measure. For example, the average difference between 

testers with and without children on the indicator “tester able 

to get an appointment” was -0.004. The negative sign indicates 

that testers without children were less likely to get an appointment than testers with children. The estimate is not statistically 

significant, and so we conclude that homeseekers with and 

without children are equally likely to get an appointment. (This 

finding is also displayed in exhibit 10, where it appears as a 

-0.4 percent difference.)

The rows below the top row display measures of the average 

difference between two groups of the differential treatment 

between testers with and without children. In other words, 

as explained in technical detail in chapter 3, the numbers in 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 24 Exhibit 14. Multivariate Regression Analysis (Ordinary Least Squares) of Testing Factors Multivariate Factors (reference group) Summary Measures Tester Able To Reach an Agent (%) Tester Able To Obtain Information (%) Tester Able To Get an Appointment (%) Tester Able To Meet With an Agent (%) Tester Told Any Units Available (%) Average Number of Units Tester Told Available of Any Size (%) Tester Told About Any Unit of Requested Size (%) Average Number of Units Tester Told Available of Requested Size Average Square Footage of Any Unit Told About Average Renta ($) Average Rent ($) Tester Shown Any Unit (%) Number of Units Shown of Any Size Told About Any Incentives (%) Summary measures differences (no reference group) – 0.3 0.1 – 0.4 – 0.2 – 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.07 – 22*** 5 – 13 0.01 0.18** 5.5** African-American test (White tester) – 0.011 – 0.006 0.002 – 0.003 – 0.006 – 0.217 0.016 – 0.233 – 2.976 1.307 – 12.859 – 0.001 – 0.227 0.006 Hispanic test (White tester) – 0.005 – 0.013 – 0.003 – 0.007 0.016 – 0.233 0.032 – 0.275* – 6.468 12.483 – 13.172 0.005 – 0.246 0.020 One bedroom (two or three bedrooms) 0.005 0.024** 0.022 0.010 0.029* 0.145 0.162*** 0.377*** – 16.929 1.364 – 3.742 0.025 0.076 – 0.040 One child (two children) 0.018 – 0.023 – 0.013 – 0.005 – 0.024 – 0.155 – 0.014 – 0.138 – 11.096 – 11.270* – 17.509* – 0.056 – 0.263* – 0.032 Single (married) – 0.006 – 0.003 – 0.003 – 0.007 0.003 0.079 – 0.076*** – 0.046 19.123** 2.880 8.810 0.011 0.044 – 0.030 Teen male (young child) – 0.026** 0.018 0.018 0.004 0.005 0.066 0.004 0.059 – 0.786 – 11.410 – 12.877* – 0.004 – 0.036 – 0.022 Teen female (young child) – 0.026* 0.014* – 0.010 0.010 – 0.010 0.099 – 0.019 – 0.039 11.439 – 2.194 – 4.501 – 0.004 – 0.035 0.009 Dayton (Dallas) 0.010 0.014 0.006 – 0.007 0.026 – 0.165 0.092 – 0.032 – 1.912 7.218 8.294 0.003 – 0.101 – 0.075 Los Angeles (Dallas) – 0.005 0.003 – 0.015 0.006 0.013 – 0.141 – 0.034 – 0.210 26.832** 8.632 26.330** – 0.024 – 0.211 – 0.110** Constant 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.002 – 0.012 0.318 0.002 0.364 – 25.035 1.138 0.360 0.044 0.574 0.140 aControlling for number of bedrooms. *Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .01 level. Note: Italicized numbers indicate statistically significant coefficients.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 25

the table represent a difference of differences. For instance, 

the row labeled “African-American test” shows whether the 

differences between testers with and without children were the 

same for African-American and White testers. The data in this 

row answer this question: Among African-American testers, 

was the difference in treatment experienced by testers with and 

without children the same as what was found among White 

testers? For the indicator “tester able to get an appointment,” 

the table displays “0.002.” Because the number is positive, the 

average differential treatment among African-American testers 

was greater than the average among White testers, but again 

the difference is not statistically significant. We conclude that 

African-American and White homeseekers are equally likely 

to experience (or not experience) this type of familial status 

discrimination.

When examining ethnicity, Hispanic and White testers were 

equally likely to experience—or in this case not experience—

familial status-based discrimination. The one exception was 

on the indicator “average number of units told available of 

requested size.” The difference displayed is negative (-0.275 

units), showing that the difference between testers with and 

without children was smaller for Hispanic testers than for 

White testers. Only one indicator appeared as statistically 

significant, however, so this finding is very weak evidence for 

ethnicity influencing the likelihood of housing discrimination.24

To confirm the lack of evidence for the influence of race and 

ethnicity, we went one step further and limited the analysis 

to the 96 percent of paired tests for which two-thirds or 

more of raters correctly identified both testers’ race/ethnicity 

(meaning that the correct race/ethnicity of the tester was clear 

to most people). Once again, African-American and Hispanic 

testers were less likely to see a difference between testers with 

and without children than were White testers. Although the 

changes in the estimates were very small, on two outcome 

measures—total available units and total advertised units—the 

estimates changed just enough to become statistically significant 

at the 10-percent level. Thus, the evidence continues to show 

that, compared to Whites, African-American and Hispanic 

testers were equally likely, or possibly less likely, to experience 

familial-status based discrimination.

Seeking a one-bedroom unit, however, increased the likelihood 

of familial status discrimination. Exhibit 14 shows that, on 

average, when testers with and without children applied for 

one-bedroom apartments, they were more likely to be treated 

differently than when they asked for two- or three-bedroom 

units. The difference between testers with and without children 

in the likelihood of obtaining any information was 2.4 percentage points greater, and the difference in the likelihood of being 

told about any unit of the requested size was 16 percentage 

points greater. The difference in number of units told about was 

0.377 units. The difference between testers with and without 

children for each indicator is statistically significant. In other 

words, for all these indicators, compared with testers without 

children, when applying for one-bedroom units instead of twoor three-bedroom units, testers with children were less likely to 

learn about available units.

Compared with families with two children, families with only 

one child similarly were treated more like families without children for measures of rent and the number of units shown. The 

difference between testers with one child and testers without 

children in average rent offered, average rent controlling for 

number of bedrooms, and number of units they got to see was 

smaller than the difference between families with two children 

and families without children. These differences are statistically 

significant. Families with one child were closer to families 

without children by $11 per month in rent (adjusted for the 

number of bedrooms in a unit) and by 0.263 units shown.

Finally, based on the tests of statistical significance, three other 

factors might influence the likelihood of differential treatment 

based on familial status: (1) age of child, (2) sex of child, and 

(3) location of rental unit. Interpreting these findings substantively, however, is difficult.

Marital status (single versus married) influenced differential 

treatment. In terms of being told about any unit of the requested 

size, the difference between testers posing as single women (without children) and single mothers was smaller than the difference 

between testers posing as married couples with and without children, by 7.6 percentage points. The difference between testers 

posing as single women and single mothers in terms of the size 

of units they were told about was larger by 19 square feet than 

the difference between married couple testers with and without 

children. Having a child did not seem to affect the landlord’s 

or rental agent’s notion of the size of a unit to offer a married 

couple, but it did so for a single woman. In general, testers with 

children were offered larger units than were testers without 

children (see exhibit 10), and it seems this effect was larger 

among single renters than married renters.

Statistically significant differences showed up in the likelihood 

of differential treatment based on the age and sex of the 

tester’s child. Testers with a teenager (boy or girl) were closer 

on the indicator “able to reach an agent” to testers without 

24 For the outcome indicators in exhibit 14, no difference in treatment was notable for African-American and Hispanic testers.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 26

children than were testers with a young child, by 0.026 or 

2.6 percentage points. On average, the difference between 

testers with teenage boys and testers without children in terms 

of the average rent offered was $12.80 per month less than 

the difference between testers with a young child and testers 

without children. This finding was not statistically significant 

when controlling for number of bedrooms.25

Being in Los Angeles instead of Dallas influenced the likelihood of differential treatment associated with familial status. 

The difference between testers with and without children in 

terms of average size (square feet) of units offered was greater 

by 26.8 square feet in Los Angeles; the rents quoted—without 

controlling for bedroom size—were also farther apart, by 

$26.30 per month.

Estimates of Discrimination by Data 

Collection Method

The pilot study used two methods to collect data: telephone 

calls and in-person visits to rental housing providers. For each 

test, both testers first called the housing provider (collecting 

as much information as possible about available units and 

conditions for their rental) and then requested an in-person 

appointment. After these calls, they made an in-person visit 

to the housing provider to collect the same information and 

inspect some units. The goal was to understand whether both 

methods led to the same findings. In this section, we focus on 

measures that can be gathered by telephone calls and in-person 

visits, namely whether the tester was told any units were available; how many units of any size they were told were available; 

how many units of a specific size they were told were available; 

and various details about the units they were told about, such 

as size, rent, fees, and incentives.

In-person tests are considered the gold standard against which 

less-expensive telephone tests should be compared. One 

concern with telephone testing is that the measures (or test 

outcomes) may be harder to collect or less reliable than data 

collected through in-person tests. Local testing organizations 

have reported that the people responding to telephone calls 

may be management company personnel with little detailed 

information about particular units, and, in some cases, it 

seemed as if their primary goal was to encourage an in-person 

visit to the rental site. The organizations also reported that testers were more likely to be told about a range of possible rents 

rather than a specific dollar value when asking about rents over 

the telephone. Being told of a range of rents is not necessarily a 

problem, but the range may reflect the rents for the inventory 

in that building rather than the units that are actually available 

for rent.

Exhibit 15 shows selected outcomes we captured through both 

telephone calls and in-person visits. The close correspondence 

of the means for the outcomes across the two data collection 

methods suggests that testers collected similar information using 

both methods. Several differences were observed. Remarks about 

occupancy standards were more common over the telephone, 

and information about incentives and fees was more common 

in the in-person tests. Also, testers found out about more units 

during the in-person tests. Finally, a key finding from this study 

is seen in both sets of outcome measures: namely, families with 

children were told about larger units on average than childless 

households inquiring about the same-size units and were quoted 

correspondingly higher rents.

We also extended the multivariate regression analysis discussed 

in the previous section to obtain a more systematic analysis of 

whether outcomes captured by telephone calls versus in-person 

visits yielded different estimates of differential treatment. These 

regression results yielded estimates of the effect of telephone 

versus in-person testing controlling for race, unit size, number 

and ages of children, and pilot study site.

The results indicated greater levels of differential treatment over 

the telephone for measures of unit availability and greater differential treatment when meeting in person for measures related 

to unit size. In particular, telephone tests yielded somewhat 

greater levels of differential treatment than in-person tests 

for two specific measures: (1) whether any unit was available 

(p = .069) and (2) whether an advertised unit was available 

(p = .052). Comments on occupancy standards were also more 

common in the telephone tests (p = .000). In-person tests led 

to greater levels of differential treatment for three specific 

measures: (1) the number of units of another size told about 

(p = .014), (2) being told about a larger size than what was 

requested (p = .004), and (3) the number of larger units the 

tester was told about (p = .002).

If using telephone tests only, the findings on differential treatment of families with children would yield the same general 

finding that families are being steered into larger units, but 

the estimate of prevalence might be different. Telephone tests 

only would tend to produce a larger estimate of differential 

treatment in being told about an advertised unit or about any 

25 No difference in treatment was evident between teen males and females for any of the treatment outcomes in exhibit 14.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 27 Exhibit 15. Selected Telephone and In-Person Measures Telephone Measures In-Person Measures Both/ Same Without Children With Children Difference SE N Both/ Same Without Children With Children Difference SE N If able to reach an agent with information about housing If able to meet with an agent Tester told any units available 95.5% 2.2% 1.3% 0.9% 0.9% 641 95.7% 1.9% 2.0% – 0.1% 1.2% 615 Tester told about more units (of any number of bedrooms) 54.1% 24.9% 21.0% 3.9% 3.7% 641 46.0% 28.9% 25.1% 3.8% 4.0% 615 Average number of units tester told available (of any number of bedrooms) 1.67 1.61 0.06 0.06 641 1.95 1.85 0.10 0.07 615 Tester told about more units (of the requested number of bedrooms) 57.3% 20.9% 21.8% – 0.9% 3.6% 633 51.0% 25.9% 23.1% 2.7% 3.8% 615 Average number of units tester told available (of the requested number of bedrooms) 1.48 1.45 0.03 0.06 629 1.71 1.65 0.07 0.06 615 If told about any unit If told about any unit Average square footage of units 974 993 – 19*** 6 593 1,001 1,023 – 22*** 7 567 Average rent $1,280 $1,302 – $22*** $7 611 $1,311 $1,325 – $13* $7 590 Average renta $1,308 $1,312 – $4 $3 567 $1,341 $1,336 $5 $4 546 Tester told about incentives 24.4% 9.9% 8.2% 1.6% 2.3% 611 32.0% 12.2% 6.7% 5.5%** 2.5% 590 Average amount of incentives $190 $189 $1 $18 611 $276 $277 – $1 $30 590 Tester told fees required for any unit 40.6% 7.3% 9.8% – 2.7% 2.1% 611 46.5% 8.3% 9.9% – 1.6% 2.4% 590 Average fees for any unit $129 $135 – $6 $13 611 $156 $182 – $26 $16 590 SE = standard error of the difference. aControlling for number of bedrooms. *Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .01 level. 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 28

available unit. Compared with in-person tests, telephone tests 

only would produce a lower estimate of the extent to which 

families are told about units of another size, larger units, and 

a greater number of larger units.

In light of the existing literature and the commentary and experiences of practitioners, the findings of this rigorous pairedtesting study are very surprising. We expected to find stronger 

evidence of discrimination against families with children in 

rental housing markets. We found some evidence of steering 

to slightly larger and more expensive units. This finding was 

more pronounced for families with two children than for 

families with one child and when seeking a one-bedroom unit 

rather than a two- or three-bedroom unit. Further, we expected 

to find that race and ethnicity and family composition would 

influence experiences of discrimination. The likelihood of experiencing familial status discrimination, however, was the same 

for African-American, Hispanic, and White testers. We also 

expected to see differences between the treatment of male and 

female children, teenagers and young children, and single and 

married couples, yet no evidence supported this expectation. 

These findings raised a host of additional questions. The next 

chapter reports on complementary analyses undertaken to 

address many of these questions.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 29

Extended Data Analyses

The study findings diverge from the limited background 

information available on discrimination against children in the 

rental housing market. The results are particularly puzzling 

given the prevalence of familial status complaints historically 

and during the past few years (NFHA, 2011, 2012, 2013). In 

light of the unanticipated findings, in this chapter we explore 

possible reasons for the differences between complaints of 

familial status discrimination and the findings from the pilot 

study. In particular, we ask—

• Were rental vacancy rates unusually high in the three 

pilot study sites, making housing providers less likely to 

discriminate?

• Are agents working for large, professional management 

companies less likely than smaller rental housing providers to discriminate?

• Did housing providers make comments that might reflect 

subtle forms of discrimination against families with children?

• Could the assignment of testers to protected or control 

status have distorted the test results?

• Do HUD’s complaint data suggest that most familial status 

discrimination occurs later in the lease-up process or after 

occupancy?

• Do local occupancy standards explain some or all of the 

findings of differential treatment?

Each question provides evidence to help validate the results 

of the pilot study. We approach each in turn in the following 

sections.

Vacancy Rates in the Pilot Study Sites

If rental housing vacancy rates in the pilot study sites were 

unusually high, then rental agents may have been more willing 

than usual to rent to families with children (in other words, 

they were not in a position to be as choosy or discriminating as 

they might otherwise have been). Exhibit 16 shows that, in one 

site (Dallas), the vacancy rate for all rentals in the metropolitan 

area was a bit higher than the national average and that, in 

the other two sites (Dayton and Los Angeles), the rate was 

below the national average. None of these sites seemed to be 

major outliers relative to the national average, and trends over 

time showed no major changes, with the exception of Dayton, 

which moved much closer to the national average in the 4-year 

period between 2008 and 2012.

Exhibit 16. National and Metropolitan Statistical 

Area-Specific Rental Vacancy Rates

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010

Year

2011 2012

Percentage of rental units vacant

United States

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA

Dayton, OH MSA

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Source: American Community Survey 1-year estimates (CP04, 

Housing Characteristics)

When comparing the three metropolitan areas with the 381 

metropolitan statistical areas in the 2013 ACS, we found that 

Los Angeles had the lowest vacancy rate and was ranked at the 

14th percentile of the metropolitan statistical areas, with Dayton at the 30th percentile and Dallas at the 63rd. In short, none 

of the three sites were extreme outliers, whether compared 

nationally or over time within their own markets, and we see 

no reason to believe that rental housing vacancy rates in the 

three pilot study sites systematically affected our findings.

Role of Professional Management 

Companies

Another potential explanation for our findings is that management companies, and the people who work for them, may 

have a different set of incentives and behaviors when it comes 

to interacting with prospective renters compared with small 

landlords or landlords of apartment buildings that are not 

professionally managed. Rather than slamming a door, hanging 

up the phone, or quoting less desirable financial terms for one 

renter versus another, their goals may be to get as many potential renters to available units as possible or to rent apartments as 

quickly and efficiently as possible.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 30

Using rental property addresses and the names of properties 

collected by testers during data collection, we sought to identify properties that were or were not managed professionally. 

Our results are shown in exhibit 17. We found that Dallas had 

the highest share of professionally managed test sites (95 percent), and Dayton and Los Angeles had higher shares of independently managed test sites (12 and 13 percent, respectively). 

Dayton and Los Angeles also had higher shares of properties 

for which the property management arrangement was unknown 

(about 9 percent each).

Within each of the three sites, we also counted the number of 

professional property management firms identified by the local 

testing organization during the study and the share of these firms 

that were identified only for a single property (exhibit 18). 

Dallas had the largest number of professional management 

firms overseeing only one property among our test sites, and 

Dayton had the smallest share of such firms.

A small number of unique professional management firms, 

along with a small share of firms identified only once, suggests 

a relatively concentrated professional property management 

market. For example, the most well-represented professional 

management firms in Dayton and Los Angeles were associated 

with more unique test sites (20 in Dayton and 25 in Los Angeles) than the most well-represented professional management 

firm in Dallas (13). It is possible that such concentrated property management markets might yield less variation in rental 

agent treatment and, hence, less discrimination, than what 

might be found in cities and markets in which management 

companies account for a smaller share of the market.

From this analysis, it is clear that many rental properties are 

being professionally managed. We compared the subset of 

tests of properties that were professionally managed with those 

that were not to see if we could determine clear differences in 

Exhibit 17. Management Status of Rental Properties

Professionally

Managed

(%)

Independently

Managed

(%)

Inconclusive 

(%)

Dallas, Texas 95 4 2

Dayton, Ohio 79 12 9

Los Angeles, California 78 13 9

Exhibit 18. Number of Professional Management 

Firms and Share Managing Only One Test Site

Professional Management 

Companies Identified

Share

Identified 

Only Once

Dallas, Texas 93 59

Dayton, Ohio 64 34

Los Angeles, California 54 48

treatment between the two, but the small sample sizes of the 

pilot study and the small size of our overall estimates limited our 

ability to explore this question fully. We found no difference in 

access to housing. This pattern does not cause us to question 

the appropriateness of our outcome measures in reflecting the 

actual experiences of applicants in these rental housing markets, 

because the presence of the management companies in our tests 

reflects their presence in the available housing in these cities. It 

might, however, suggest that we cannot rule out the possibility 

of larger differences in treatment in cities in which management 

companies account for a small share of the market.

Rental Agent Comments and Tester 

Narratives

Given our overall findings, we decided to further examine the 

tester narratives in our database in an effort to identify any comments (positive or negative) or other indications of differential 

treatment regarding familial status. We read through the comments and searched on many terms that might be mentioned 

when talking about children (for example, kid, child, teen, 

family, play, run, climb, noise, drugs, school, bike, pool) or 

the absence of children (for example, adult, peace, calm, quiet, 

safe, orderly, rules, retire, rest). The search did not yield many 

such comments, but most of those it did yield were supportive 

of children and families, even in the comments made to testers 

with no children. For example, rental agents mentioned a 

summer feeding program with a bike giveaway; an afterschool 

supervision in a common recreational room where children 

could do homework until 6 p.m., when many working parents 

returned home; and playgrounds that were close by and safe 

and easy for parents to monitor from a kitchen window. The 

few comments about local schools were all positive.

Because we found some evidence of steering families with children to slightly larger and more expensive units, we also looked 

at and searched for comments relating to apartment size (for 

example, big, small, bedroom, space, storage, occupancy). We 

found two comments about occupancy standards. In one case, 

the tester explained that she was looking for a one-bedroom 

apartment for herself, her husband, and their 4-year-old son, 

and the agent replied, “You know, you’re pushing the occupancy 

limits with a one bedroom, but we have one available on the 

third floor that can be ready October 11 if you can wait until 

then.” In a second similar case (a tester presenting herself as 

married with a 4-year-old son), the tester reports in her narrative that the agent told her that “the Texas occupancy law that 

states that no more than two people can occupy a one-bedroom 

apartment. She said that we’d have to go with a two bedroom.” 

Given our finding of steering to larger units and these two 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 31

comments, future studies of potential housing discrimination 

against families with children should include the issue of 

occupancy standards.

We also searched the narratives for terms and phrases that 

might indicate whether agents were probing about the financial 

situations of the testers (for example, afford, job, employment, 

pay, check, finance, stable, rent, fees, deposit). Once again, we 

did not find any comments or observations that would suggest 

systematic differences between testers with and without 

children. Finally, none of the sampled ads included explicitly 

discriminatory language about families with children.

Tester Assignment to Protected Class 

Versus Control Tests

Another question we considered after completing our initial 

analyses was how testers were assigned to protected class 

(a family with a child) versus control (a family without a child) 

tests. These assignments ideally would have been random, ensuring no systematic relationship between a tester’s personality or 

other characteristics and their assignment on the tests. Unlike 

previous paired-testing studies examining race/ethnicity, testers 

in this pilot study could pose either as a parent or as a childless 

homeseeker. If the same testers always posed as parents (and 

other testers always posed as childless homeseekers), it is 

possible that testers posing as parents might have appeared to 

be more appealing tenants on other (unmeasured) attributes, 

thus systematically reducing differences in treatment.

Exhibit 19 shows that 34 percent of testers were assigned the 

same role 90 percent of the time across all the tests they conducted. These testers did not conduct many completed tests, 

individually or as a share of the total. In fact, they accounted 

for only 6 percent of all completed tests conducted in the pilot 

study. Among testers who conducted multiple tests, most 

tended to split their time between the two options (that is, 

Exhibit 19. Tester Assignment to Protected Class and 

Control Tests

Tester Assigned to 

Same Status in Tests (%) All Testers (%) All Tests (%)

> 90 34 6

80–90 4 5

70–80 9 13

60–70 26 35

50–60 27 41

protected and control). More than one-fourth (27 percent) of all 

testers played the same role approximately one-half the time 

(between 50 and 60 percent), and they accounted for 41 percent 

of all the tests conducted.

As a result, we believe that it is unlikely that the assignment to 

the protected and controlled class is the source of the observed 

findings.

TEAPOTS Data and Familial Status

A potentially important limitation of the paired-testing approach 

to estimating housing discrimination is that it examines a relatively narrow window within the home seeking-occupancy continuum. It does not extend to the actual lease-signing stage, nor 

does it reflect the experiences of renters after they have moved 

in (postoccupancy). Fair housing groups have reported that 

many of the problems that families with children face actually 

occur when families are occupying units. To begin to explore 

this issue in a preliminary way, we looked at data from HUD’s 

Title Eight Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS).

We looked at familial status cases in both sales and rental housing over time, since 1988, when the Fair Housing Amendments 

Act was passed. Exhibit 20 demonstrates that familial status cases have declined since the implementation of the Fair Housing 

Amendments Act. Immediately after these amendments, cases 

of discrimination grew steadily until 1993, when the number 

Exhibit 20. Number of Familial Status Cases, 1988 to 2014

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

1985 1990 1995

Number of cases
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 32

began to fall until they leveled out before 2000. The increase 

in the number of cases in the late 2000s was associated with 

larger numbers of cases involving advertising, when landlords 

began to use Internet advertising more frequently. The number 

of familial status cases has declined since then.

We also examined familial status cases from 2000 to 2014 by 

type of complaint recorded in TEAPOTS to determine whether 

discrimination was occurring before occupancy or after 

families with children had moved into their units.26 Exhibit 21 

shows that the TEAPOTS data show that cases of family discrimination in rental housing occurred as prospective tenants 

tried to obtain a rental and after they moved in. Exhibit 21 also 

shows that trends in the percentages of complaints for preoccupancy and postoccupancy have been fairly stable since 2000. 

On average, 26 percent of rental cases involved discriminatory 

advertising, 46 percent involved discriminatory refusal to rent; 

and 55 percent involved discriminatory terms, conditions, and 

privileges. 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. The relatively large shares of complaints 

associated with advertising and discriminatory refusal to rent 

suggest we had reason to expect discrimination in the window 

examined in this study.

Role of Residential Occupancy 

Standards in the Pilot Study Sites

As expected, residential occupancy standards were different 

in each testing site. In fact, they differed even within the 

three metropolitan areas we tested. As described in chapter 2, 

occupancy standards vary by jurisdiction, and litigation relying 

on the Fair Housing Amendments Act covering families with 

children can hinge on the definition of habitable space that is 

included in a jurisdiction’s building codes. The sample for this 

pilot study included advance calls to advertised units in 109 

jurisdictions across the three metropolitan areas. Some of the 

housing providers in our sample were in states with clearly 

defined residential occupancy limits,27 but others were not. To 

further complicate matters, even in states with laws defining 

residential occupancy standards, local laws can be more 

restrictive. Also, under some circumstances, landlords can set 

even more restrictive occupancy standards than what state or 

local laws dictate.

The variance in residential occupancy standards across and 

within the testing sites made it difficult to evaluate whether 

testers were being illegally denied housing under the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act. For these reasons most of our tests 

Exhibit 21. Percentage of Rental Cases by Complaint (Discriminatory Advertising; Refusal to Rent; and Postoccupancy Discriminatory Terms, Conditions, and Privileges), 2000 to 2014

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

2010 2012 2014 2016

Percent of rental complaints

Advertising, notices Refusal to rent Postoccupancy

26 The total percentage of cases adds up to more than 100 percent because of some cases being included in multiple categories of cases. In addition, the sample here 

is limited to cases after 2000, when HUD began counting sales and rental cases separately in the TEAPOTS database.

27 Texas has a maximum occupancy standard of three times the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. This standard theoretically should cover one-third of the tests 

in this pilot study.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 33

(by design) did not exceed the guideline of two persons per 

bedroom, a guideline that has been widely circulated in a document known as the Keating Memo.28 A small portion of the 

tests were designed to push and possibly exceed the residential 

occupancy standards, because the literature suggests that residential occupancy standards potentially play a significant role 

in discrimination against families with children. As described 

in chapter 3, the pilot study was designed to examine a variety 

of potentially important family and housing characteristics. 

One combination of characteristics, namely married couples 

with one child seeking one-bedroom apartments, could have 

exceeded government residential occupancy limits. We looked 

at the outcomes for this subset of tests to examine whether 

discrimination was more apparent for families with this set of 

characteristics.

We examined the outcomes for which we found differential 

treatment against families with children in the whole sample 

and found that discrimination against families with children 

was more severe for the subsample of tests in which the family 

size would exceed a two-persons-per-bedroom standard 

(which may or may not have violated the actual occupancy 

standard that prevailed). In this subsample, we found that 

testers with children were 21 percent points more likely to be 

told about larger units with more bedrooms than their childless counterparts (exhibit 22). In fact, these testers were 21 

percentage points more likely than their childless counterparts 

to be told about only larger units. Testers without children 

were 16 percentage points more likely to be told about the 

advertised unit or a smaller unit. This practice resulted in 

families with children being told about units with 0.19 more 

bedrooms on average than their childless counterparts. Thus, 

for every five visits to a housing provider, married testers with 

one child looking for a one-bedroom unit would be told about 

a larger unit than their childless counterparts.

We also looked at outcomes after removing tests in which family 

size could potentially exceed the government-imposed occupancy 

limits to check that our previous findings were not the product 

of a small number of cases that might exceed residential occupancy standards. In this subsample, families with children were 

still told about larger units on average than their childless counterparts, but the difference was much smaller than for those 

families who were close to pushing the residential occupancy 

standards. Families with children who did not come close to 

exceeding residential occupancy standards were told about larger 

units 8 percent of the time. The difference in number of bedrooms on average was 0.05 bedrooms (exhibit 23). In this case, 

for every 20 in-person visits to a housing provider, the testers 

with a child would be told about one unit with more bedrooms 

than their childless counterpart. In this subsample of tests, 

testers with children were not more likely to be told about only

larger units than their childless counterparts.

These findings, along with some of the occupancy-related comments in the tester narratives, suggest that residential occupancy 

standards may play an important role in discrimination against 

families with children. Although these estimates are suggestive, 

we generally do not find a significant difference between the estimates at usual levels of significance. They matter in our results, 

but they are not the only factor contributing to rental agents 

showing families with children larger and more expensive units.

Exhibit 22. Unit Size and Price for Married Couples With a Child Seeking a One-Bedroom Apartment

Measures of Differential Treatment Both (%) Without 

Children

With

Child Difference SE N

Tester told different number of bedrooms 62.7 8.1% 29.2% – 21.1%*** 7.8% 106

Average number of bedrooms 1.15 1.34 – 0.19*** 0.06 106

Tester told different average rent 55.3 16.1% 28.6% – 12.4% 8.9% 106

Average rent $1,347 $1,388 – $41* $22 106

Tester told different average renta 74.0 13.3% 12.7% 0.6% 8.0% 84

Average renta $1,453 $1,446 $7 $12 84

Tester told about only larger units 7.8 2.7% 23.4% – 20.7%*** 6.3% 106

Tester told about only smaller units 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA 106

Tester told about a unit of the assigned size or smaller unit 54.5 23.5% 7.6% 15.8%*** 7.4% 106

Tester told about both a larger unit and at least one assigned or smaller unit 3.2 8.4% 3.5% 4.8% 4.6% 106

SE = standard error of the difference.

a

 Controlling for number of bedrooms.

*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .01 level.

28 See HUD (1998): http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/occupancystds.pdf.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 34

In summary, the extended analyses reported in this chapter 

support the overall findings of the pilot study, but they also 

suggest some important dimensions for future studies of 

discrimination against families with children in the rental housing market, especially regarding postoccupancy and occupancy 

standards.

Exhibit 23. Unit Size and Price for Married Couples With a Child Seeking a One-Bedroom Apartment

Measures of Differential Treatment Both

(%)

Without 

Children

With 

Child Difference SE N

Tester told different number of bedrooms 83.5 4.2% 12.3% – 8.0%*** 2.5% 485

Average number of bedrooms 1.95 2.00 – 0.05*** 0.02 485

Tester told different average rent 73.5 10.7% 15.8% – 5.1%* 3.1% 485

Average rent $1,308 $1,318 – $10 $7 485

Tester told different average renta 84.7 8.6% 6.7% 1.8% 2.2% 463

Average renta $1,331 $1,326 $5 $5 463

Tester told about only larger units 2.0 0.4% 0.7% – 0.3% 0.6% 485

Tester told about only smaller units 2.3 2.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.9% 485

Tester told about a unit of the assigned size or smaller unit 93.3 3.0% 0.9% 2.0% 1.2% 485

Tester told about both a larger unit and at least one assigned or smaller unit 0.2 1.2% 2.8% – 1.6% 1.3% 485

SE = standard error of the difference.

a

 Controlling for number of bedrooms.

*Significant at the .10 level. **Significant at the .05 level. ***Significant at the .01 level.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 35

Discussion and Conclusions

Many families with children face significant challenges in the 

rental housing market, and it is critical that we understand to 

what extent discrimination is part of this problem. This pilot 

study set out to answer a number of key questions, including 

what we know about discrimination against families with children in rental housing, how best to measure this form of discrimination and test it in the field, and potential variations in 

this form of discrimination based on family or housing characteristics. A companion report, Future Directions for Research on 

Discrimination Against Families With Children in Rental Housing 

Markets, examines the implications of this pilot study for a 

national study of rental housing discrimination against families 

with children.

Our review of the literature found that little rigorous research 

has been done on this topic, and the few available studies are 

dated. The available research indicates many factors might play 

a role in discrimination against families, including the race/

ethnicity or marital status of the household head; the number, 

ages, and sex of children in the household; and the type of 

housing a family is seeking. Our background analysis of renters 

in AHS finds that families with children in the rental market 

are more likely to be female- and minority-headed households. 

They pay more in rent despite having incomes that are similar 

to those of childless renters, and they occupy larger rental 

units than do childless renters. These units are also more likely 

to be single-family homes rather than multifamily rental properties. Families with children compete with childless renters 

for housing of all sizes, and they often occupy larger units 

than their actual family size requires. Some families, especially 

those who are rent burdened, may be forgoing smaller, more 

affordable units against their preferences. Larger families, who 

require larger housing units, must still compete with childless 

renters for the more limited share of two- and three-bedroom 

rental units.

A key goal of this study was to adapt and apply a well-established 

methodology—paired testing—within the field of housing discrimination research to this population of renters. At first glance, 

this new application seems quite straightforward, but the 

diversity of family types and the complexity of establishing a 

reasonable counterfactual (or matched comparison) means it 

was far from simple. We confirm that paired testing can be 

used successfully for family renters, but the method needs to 

be designed and applied with care. A separate user-friendly 

practitioner’s guide that distills lessons learned in this and 

many other paired-testing studies conducted by the Urban 

Institute, How To Test for Discrimination Against Families With 

Children in Rental Housing Markets: A Guide for Practitioners, has 

been published by the Urban Institute.

As part of this study, we developed preliminary estimates of the 

size and nature of rental housing discrimination against families 

with children and examined what family and housing characteristics might be influencing this form of discrimination. Overall, our findings show that well-qualified homeseekers with and 

without children are equally likely to get an appointment with 

a rental agent and to learn about at least one available housing 

unit. Families with children are told about slightly fewer and 

somewhat larger and more expensive units (on average) than 

childless households inquiring about the same-size units. For 

every six in-person visits to housing providers, families with 

children are shown one fewer rental unit (0.18 fewer units per 

visit when both testers were told a unit was available) than 

were families without children. After adjusting for differences 

in number of bedrooms per unit, the overall rent, fees, and 

financial incentives do not differ significantly for homeseekers 

with and without children.

Regarding family and housing characteristics that might shape 

how this form of housing discrimination plays out in the market, 

this pilot study finds differential treatment to be greater in tests 

targeting one-bedroom units (versus two- or three-bedroom 

units) and in tests involving two-child families (versus one-child 

families). Other family factors, including the race, ethnicity, and 

marital status of the tester and the ages and sexes of the children, 

do not appear to affect systematically how rental housing agents 

treated families with children.

Even small differences can constrain housing options for homeseekers with children. The literature suggests that steering and 

constrained housing choices have significant effects on families 

with children. Some of the consequences of discriminatory 

practices against families with children include increased travel 

and decreased access to jobs in adjacent cities, fewer or no school 

choices, higher rent burdens on families, and emotional distress 

associated with having to move more frequently (Blake and 

Greene, 1980). Other outcomes include longer housing searches, 

forced moves, overcrowding, lower housing quality, and forced 

separation of family members and more nontraditional living 

situations.

The findings of this rigorous paired-testing study are very surprising in light of previous studies. We expected to find stronger 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 36

evidence of discrimination against families with children in 

rental housing markets. In light of the unexpected findings 

we conducted six additional data analyses, including (1) the 

vacancy rates in the three pilot study sites, (2) the extent to 

which rental housing is overseen by professional management 

companies, (3) how testers were assigned to the protected class 

(with child) versus control (no child) status, (4) the type of complaints recorded in the TEAPOTS data, and (5) an examination 

of a subset of tests that pushed the residential occupancy standard. Finally, the sixth additional analysis involved reexamining 

the narratives from the tests to determine if specific examples 

of discrimination against families with children were not picked 

up during data collection. None of these additional analyses 

caused us to question the validity of the pilot study findings 

as a measure of discrimination in rental inquiries in the three 

metropolitan areas.

Two of our six analyses provided support for future areas of 

research. First, our preliminary analyses of HUD’s TEAPOTS 

data demonstrate that families with children are equally likely 

to experience discrimination in the preoccupancy and postoccupancy stages of the rental cycle. Because paired testing 

is limited to the preoccupancy stage of the rental cycle, the 

present study would not capture differences in treatment for 

households with children after they occupy a unit. Second, 

we found that the point estimates are largest in tests in which 

agents might believe a family exceeds the occupancy standard. 

Because local ordinances help landlords set residential occupancy standards, the differential treatment in these cases may 

be agents trying to behave in line with what they believe to be 

the local residential occupancy standard. This finding suggests 

that residential occupancy standards may play an important 

role in restricting the housing options of families with children.

It is important to keep in mind the limitations of paired-testing 

studies. They target a specific window within the overall housing identification-search-inquiry-occupancy continuum. The 

approach was not designed to capture renters’ experiences at 

lease signing or postoccupancy, and anecdotal evidence from 

local fair housing groups across the country suggests families 

face more problems at these later stages. In addition, in pairedtesting studies, the testers posing as prospective renters always 

present themselves as financially well qualified for the housing 

they are seeking to avoid compromising the specific quality or 

characteristic being studied—in this case, familial status. Because 

many families with children struggle economically (with blemished credit histories, irregular employment, and low incomes 

relative to the cost of the housing they seek), we do not know 

what the experiences of these families are in the rental housing 

market and to what extent discrimination on the basis of family 

status plays a role for less financially well-qualified renters.

Given that more than one-fourth of landlords barred children 

outright as recently as 35 years ago, the findings from this study 

are surprising. They are also at odds with complaints received 

by HUD (14 percent of discrimination claims in 2010 involved 

families with children). We also know that the federal housing 

protections for families with children that came into effect in 

1988 are still not well known or understood by the public at 

large. For advocates and researchers looking at the results of this 

paired-testing pilot study, it would seem some discrimination 

against families with children occurs during the initial inquiry 

for housing. Less clear is whether engaging the resources required 

to examine discrimination nationally would be appropriate given 

the limited findings. The lack of recent research on discrimination against families with children and the findings from this 

pilot study, however, indicate the need for further examination 

of different approaches to measure this type of discrimination.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 37

Appendix A. Sampling Rental Housing Ads

As in the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study (HDS2012) by 

Turner et al. (2013), we sampled the available rental housing 

stock for each metropolitan site (Dallas, Texas, Dayton, Ohio, 

and Los Angeles, California) by harvesting ads from apartmentguide.com, Apartments.com, craigslist.org, and ForRent.com.

The same protocols and methods used in HDS2012 were replicated with an adjustment to filter on one-, two-, and three-bedroom 

rental homes. Sample size targets were set by the partial factorial design for one-bedroom and for two- or three-bedroom 

rental tests. Ads for two- or three-bedroom units were sampled 

randomly as they arose, using our geographic sampling plan; 

that is, we did not fix the number of two-bedroom versus 

three-bedroom tests.

Ads were sampled using a two-stage process. First, ZIP Codes 

were sampled in proportion to the rental housing ZIP Codes 

from across a given metropolitan area. Second, ads were sampled 

weekly from all sources for each ZIP Code selected into the 

sample for that week. The ads were also stratified by source to 

give each source priority for selection on a rotating basis. For 

example, using the order of websites in the preceding list, ads 

sampled in the first week of sampling were drawn from apartmentguide.com first; if additional ads were needed, they were 

drawn from Apartments.com, followed by craigslist.org, and 

so forth. In the second week, ads would be first sampled from 

Apartments.com, and if additional samples were needed, they 

were from craigslist.org, followed by ForRent.com, and so on.29

29 By the second half of the data collection period, the weekly sampled advertisements for Dayton routinely included a significant number of repeat housing providers 

or housing that had been previously tested, which made the identification of eligible test sites even more challenging for the local testing organization. As a result, 

Urban Institute staff used an onsite screening process to eliminate properties that could no longer be used before the release of advertisements to test coordinators. 

This procedure helped local project staff make the most efficient use of their time (that is, by spending less time weeding through ineligible ads, they were able to 

focus more attention on the tests themselves) while still ensuring test sites were selected at random, according to the study’s geographic sampling plan.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 38

Appendix B. Maps of Testing Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas

Map 1 . Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

Legend

Dayton

1 dot = 99.8567926 

Renter households with child

Renter households with no child
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 39

Map 2 . Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Legend

Fort Worth

Dallas

1 dot = 100.02974 

Renter households with child

Renter households with no child
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 40

Map 3 . Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Legend

Los Angeles

0 5 10 20 miles

1 dot = 100.002302

Renter households with child

Renter households with no child
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 41

Appendix C. Testing Protocols Overview and Field 

Management

The paired-testing protocols and field management procedures 

used in this pilot study were based on protocols and procedures 

developed for previous housing discrimination studies (HDSs) 

conducted under contract to HUD, including the national 2012 

Housing Discrimination Study (HDS2012), which included 

more than 8,000 completed tests in 28 metropolitan areas 

(Turner et al., 2013). For the present pilot study, the field operations team was led by a director based at the Urban Institute 

and a field-based regional coordinator who trained all local field 

staff, reviewed test reports, and maintained daily telephone and 

e-mail contact with test coordinators at each of the three pilot 

study sites. This careful oversight and regular communication 

helped the field operations team to identify and correct any 

problems as quickly as possible. The three local testing organizations that served as subcontractors to the Urban Institute on 

the study were responsible for recruiting and managing testers. 

Each organization had considerable testing experience and 

previous experience working on HDS projects. The three organizations were the North Texas Fair Housing Center (Dallas, 

Texas), the Miami Valley Fair Housing Center (Dayton, Ohio), 

and the Fair Housing Foundation (Los Angeles, California).

As with the HDS2012 study, the research team used the Central 

Online Data Entry (CODE) system, a test management database 

we designed to collect test data in each site. Because CODE 

integrates the assignment, data entry, and test management 

functions, it streamlines the process and reduces data entry 

errors by automating multiple components and implementing 

checks for consistency and completeness. Field operations staff 

continually monitored incoming data, assessed tester adherence 

to reporting requirements, and tracked progress toward testing 

targets. CODE automatically assigned identification numbers 

for rental ads, testers, e-mail and/or telephone inquiries, inperson visits, and inspected units, reducing a major source of 

potential data-entry errors.

Testers completed electronic forms for telephone calls, appointment contacts, in-person visits, and any followup contact. Test 

coordinators reviewed tests to ensure that report forms were 

complete and accurate before approving tests and submitting 

them to the research team. After tests were recorded in CODE 

as completed, the regional coordinator reviewed files to identify 

any problems with data quality. CODE also enabled the field 

staff to identify who entered information on report forms and 

when the information was entered. This information enabled 

the field staff to identify the rare tests that seemed suspicious 

and to assess whether a test had been tampered with or fabricated 

in any respect.

Testing Process

The protocols for the HDS-Families tests were divided into 

eight steps:

1. Advance contact. Local field staff perceived as a nonminority made contact on each sampled advertisement before 

it was assigned to testers. The advance contact confirmed 

the details in an advertisement and collected additional 

information required to determine eligibility and assign 

tester characteristics.

2. Test assignment. The local test coordinator created a test 

assignment based on information collected from the sampled 

advertisement and the advance contact. Testers in a pair 

were matched on age, gender, and race or ethnicity. They 

were both financially well qualified for the housing about 

which they inquired, and testers with children were assigned 

the same or slightly better qualifications (that is, slightly higher 

income, longer time on the job) than the control testers.

3. Briefing. The local test coordinator met with each tester in 

the matched pair separately. During the briefings, testers 

received and reviewed their assignment, reviewed test 

protocols, and discussed any questions or concerns with 

the coordinator.

4. Telephone contact. Testers inquired about and requested 

an appointment to view the advertised housing. If the testers 

were told the advertised housing was no longer available, 

testers inquired about other housing that was (a) adequate 

for the tester’s household in terms of size (number of bedrooms), (b) within the tester’s price range, and (c) available 

for the time the tester needed the housing.30

30 Testers were assigned a Google Voice number and a Gmail account that they used to make appointments and to receive messages from housing providers. The use 

of Google Voice and Gmail helped streamline communication by enabling testers to use a phone number that was solely for use on the project and the digital voicemail of which could be accessed on line by test coordinators and transcribed to text. Because voicemail messages from housing providers appeared as a written record 

in the testers’ assigned Gmail account and test coordinators received an e-mail alert when such messages were received, coordinators were able to monitor important 

and timely communication by forwarding messages received by tester accounts to a central e-mail account. When agents called to cancel or reschedule appointments, 

for example, test coordinators saw the message and alerted testers to take the appropriate next steps. Testers could make calls through the Google Voice system via a 

landline or their own cell phone (their Google number—not the number of the phone used to make the call—appeared on the housing provider’s caller ID).
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 42

5. Site visit. Testers visited a rental housing provider at the 

time of their appointment to inquire about the advertised 

unit and other available housing that met their requirements 

and to view such housing. Under no circumstances did 

testers submit a rental application or agree to a credit check, 

which would disclose the fact that their actual income and 

other information differed from what they told the provider.

6. Test forms. Testers completed report forms soon after 

finishing a telephone test or an in-person visit to record 

information on the application process; whether and which 

utilities were included in the rent; the exact address of the 

unit; number of bedrooms; rent amount; amount of security 

deposit and any other fees or incentives; the lease length; 

the date of availability; and any information about the 

tester gathered by the housing provider, such as income, 

employment, and family size.

7. Debriefing. After testers completed all report forms, they 

met with the test coordinator to review report forms and, 

if necessary, talk about any issues or concerns with the 

test. Debriefings were held in person with testers until 

coordinators were confident that a tester had mastered 

testing protocols and was comfortable with all the test 

report forms. After that, testers had the option of debriefing over the telephone.

8. Followup contact. The final step in the test process was 

to document in a report form any followup contact with 

a housing provider. Testers recorded information on any 

e-mail or telephone calls from a housing provider and any 

followup contact a tester was instructed to initiate.

The adapted protocols and forms are presented in full in appendix D. Given the various goals of this pilot study, including 

obtaining as much information as possible about available 

housing both over the telephone and at the in-person site visit, 

the following key additions or modifications were made to the 

HDS2012 protocols.

• Type of approach. All HDS-Families tests required 

testers to make in-person appointments, a shift from the 

HDS2012 protocol. No drop-in appointments were permitted to ensure as much information as possible about 

available housing was captured at the telephone stage.

• Disclosure of household composition. Testers were 

directed to disclose their assigned household composition 

at the beginning of the call or during a telephone message 

or e-mail. For example, testers assigned a married profile 

told housing providers that the tester and his or her spouse 

were looking for housing. Testers assigned children for a 

given test indicated the age and sex of the children. Testers 

also disclosed their assigned household composition at the 

beginning of the site visit.31

• Appointment contact/request for housing. The appointment contact protocol for HDS2012 had testers limit their 

telephone and e-mail32 contact to (1) asking about the 

advertised unit, (2) asking whether they could make an 

appointment, and (3) confirming the name of the agent 

and address of the appointment location. The appointment 

contact protocol for HDS-Families was enhanced to capture 

information about available housing that met the testers’ 

needs and any agent requests for information and/or qualifications. If testers did not initially reach a person who could 

provide information about the available housing, they asked 

to be connected with an agent who had that information. 

Testers then tried to obtain the following information about 

each available unit: number of bedrooms, rent, date of availability, lease length, utilities included (if any), exact address, 

security deposit (if any), whether an application was required, 

the amount of the application fee (if any), whether a credit 

check was required, and other fees (if any). Testers took 

notes during the call about the information they obtained 

and were asked to complete the telephone report forms 

within 1 hour of the call. They also recorded when the call 

started and ended, enabling the research team to calculate 

the length of the telephone contact (HDS2012 testers were 

asked to log only when the call was placed).

• Site visit/request for housing. Testers were directed to 

restate their assigned household composition and to make 

their request for housing again at the beginning of the site 

visit regardless of whether the agent they met was the same 

person with whom they had spoken on the telephone. The 

testers attempted to obtain the same pieces of information 

about available housing as they obtained during the telephone contact. In addition, they completed additional 

questions based on their observations of the inspected 

31 Because not all married people wear wedding rings, we did not require the wearing of rings as part of the protocol. In general, testers were expected to wear 

clothes and other accessories that were as neutral as possible and to use their discretion in this matter.

32 When the only way to make contact with the housing provider in an advertisement was via e-mail (that is, no telephone number was provided), field staff 

conducting the advance contact sent an e-mail to obtain information about the available housing. Testers who were assigned tests in which no phone number was 

provided in the advertisement sent an e-mail after the test coordinator approved the wording. No set scripts were used for these e-mail communications, because 

scripts could have increased the risk of detection.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 43

housing.33 Testers were instructed to begin completing 

test forms within an hour after the site visit. During the 

debriefing, test coordinators reviewed all answers for 

completeness and collected all notes and any documents, 

handouts, or business cards obtained during the site visit.

Because previous HDS testing protocols and forms were 

adapted significantly for this pilot study, we pretested 

both appointment contact and site visit protocols and data 

collection instruments before they were finalized for use in the 

field. To pretest the telephone protocols, regional coordinators 

based at the Urban Institute made telephone calls to housing 

providers in each of the three pilot study sites and posed as 

being married with a young child. According to protocol, they 

identified their household composition at the outset of the 

call and obtained as much information as they could about 

the available housing. To pretest the in-person protocols, 

the regional coordinators conducted site visits at apartment 

complexes in Washington, D.C. Advance contact was first 

completed with the identified housing providers (selected from 

online advertisements) to obtain information about housing 

availability, price, and number of bedrooms. The regional 

coordinators were then instructed to complete appointment 

contact and site visits according to HDS-Families protocols. 

The pretests helped us confirm the following:

1. During telephone contact and appointments, it can be 

awkward, and therefore conspicuous, to have testers 

obtain unit numbers for available units. Because this 

practice can pose a serious detection risk, we had testers 

obtain the floor the units were on and the square footage, 

both characteristics that are frequently volunteered by 

housing providers.

2. When asking about their assigned housing (for example, 

a two-bedroom unit), testers asked about the availability 

of units with other numbers of bedrooms only if an agent 

said that no two-bedroom units were available. When 

agents reported the availability of multiple units with 

the same number of bedrooms as the requested unit in 

the pretests, the regional coordinators sought to obtain 

detailed information about each unit. Testers who then 

asked the agent about any other units that had their 

required number of bedrooms and date needed reported 

varying degrees to which the agent seemed to want to end 

the call—the calls had become quite long at that point. 

In a number of instances, after the agent told the tester 

about the availability of at least one unit, he or she began 

encouraging the tester to visit the building and view 

the unit. The modified protocol is consistent with the 

HDS2012 site visit protocol in which testers asked about 

only “other” units (that is, units with a different number of 

bedrooms than the advertised or assigned unit) when no 

advertised or assigned units were available. Also consistent 

with the HDS2012 protocol, HDS-Families testers captured 

information for all housing they were told about that met 

their needs (regarding size, date of availability, and price).

The core reporting forms for this study are the same as those 

used for HDS2012, with some modifications to align with the 

changes in indicators. Tester forms, the advance contact form, 

and the tester application are all reproduced in appendix D.

Field Implementation Challenges

As with previous HDSs, a major challenge the local testing organizations faced was recruiting and retaining testers. Although 

the three organizations participating in this pilot study all have 

active testing programs, they still needed to recruit a large pool 

of new testers to meet the study’s required number of tests. 

They succeeded in recruiting available field staff, but the groups 

experienced a high rate of attrition, which forced the regional 

and local coordinators to continue recruiting and training while 

simultaneously coordinating and reviewing large numbers of 

tests. As in HDS2012, the research team anticipated some level 

of tester attrition both immediately after the tester training 

session (when testers learn how detailed the protocols are) and 

after testers conducted their first practice test (when some testers realize they are not comfortable assuming a set of assigned 

but untrue characteristics). In one of the three sites, however, 

the level of tester attrition was unexpectedly high, and, when 

new testers were recruited, the regional coordinator had to 

conduct ongoing (sometimes weekly) webinar training sessions.

The local testing organizations in the pilot study sites encountered management companies that owned or managed many 

of the rental properties in the sampled ads. Because local field 

staff were required to make advance contact before testers were 

assigned to make telephone calls, the repeated contacts with the 

same housing provider staff could pose a detection risk. As a 

result, coordinators were directed to keep careful records about 

which housing providers had been contacted and subsequently 

visited by testers. Local testing organizations also noted that the 

management company staff at the call centers were often off site 

(sometimes in a different state than the advertised housing), 

could not provide detailed or accurate information about the 

advertised housing or other available housing, and pressed 

advance contact staff and testers alike to make appointments to 

obtain additional information.

33 Our pretests confirmed that asking the same questions already covered in the telephone call did not present any unusual risks or problems. Prospective renters 

often call about and see multiple units and do not retain information from one call or visit to the next.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 44

Appendix D. Pilot Study Report Forms

ADVANCE CONTACT FORM – FWC

Control Number: _______________________________________

Advance Contact Form sequence: _______________________________________

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

Who initiated contact? [ ] Advance Caller/E-mailer or Test Coordinator

[ ] Housing Provider

With whom did you speak, if given: _______________________________________

Type of contact: [ ] Phone 

[ ] E-mail 

[ ] Text Message

Phone Number of housing provider 

(If called/text messaged only): _______________________________________ 

E-mail Address of housing provider 

(If e-mailed only): _______________________________________

Day of the week that contact was made: [ ] Monday

[ ] Tuesday

[ ] Wednesday

[ ] Thursday

[ ] Friday

[ ] Saturday

[ ] Sunday

Date (mm/dd/yyyy): ___/___/______

Time (HH:MM): _:___

AM or PM: [ ] AM 

[ ] PM

SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF THE ADVANCE CONTACT

Is this the final advance contact? [ ] YES, and housing is eligible

[ ] YES, and housing is ineligible

[ ] NO, and will attempt to contact housing provider again

If this is NOT the final advance contact, why not? [ ] No answer/kept ringing/went to voicemail

[ ] Was hung up on

[ ] Dropped call

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have information

[ ] Housing provider will call back

[ ] Told to call back later

[ ] Other

If other, please specify: _______________________________________

If this is the final advance contact and you have determined that ad is INELIGIBLE, what is the reason?

[ ] Housing provider could not be reached after 3 calls

[ ] No reply to e-mail sent w/in 24 hours

[ ] Telephone number incorrect/no longer in service

[ ] Invalid e-mail address

[ ] Automatic e-mail response stating recipient is unavailable

[ ] Outside of target area for MSA
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 45

[ ] Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, Rancherias, etc.)

[ ] Housing for older persons

[ ] Test was already conducted here/Testers have already visited 

housing provider

[ ] Another reason approved by Director of Field Operations

[ ] Electronic contact form only method to reach agent

[ ] Exceeds price range for MSA

[ ] Share situation

[ ] Single room occupancy

[ ] Apartment locator service charging up-front fee

[ ] Sublet

[ ] Temporary/short term rental

[ ] Public/subsidized housing development

[ ] No unit is available for rent

[ ] Owner does not have more than four units

[ ] Only had studio and 4+ bedroom units

[ ] Already completed bedroom targets for available bedroom 

type

[ ] Site tested within the last four weeks

[ ] Site tested for both race/ethnicity groups

If this is the final advance contact and you have determined that this ad is ELIGIBLE, please enter information about each 

available unit (or type of unit, if applicable) below:

Address of available unit # of 

Bedrooms

Rent Price Date 

Available

MM/DD/YY

What are the office hours? _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Does the agent/rental office accept appointments? [ ] Yes, you must make an appointment

[ ] Yes, you have the option of making an appointment or just 

dropping-in during office hours

[ ] No, but you may drop-in anytime during office hours 

Verify the address to be visited: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

SECTION 3: FORM SUBMISSION

General Comments: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

This form is complete [ ] Yes 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 46

[ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 47

RENTAL ASSIGNMENT FORM – FWC

Site: [auto-fill]

Control # [auto-fill] 

Tester Sequence: [auto-fill]

Tester ID # [auto-fill]

Narrative requirement: [auto-fill]

Target date and time of 1st appointment call: _______________________________________

Target date and time for scheduling an appointment: _______________________________________

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT TESTER’S HOUSEHOLD FOR SPECIFIC TEST

Household Composition [auto-fill]

Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income

Tester [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Spouse [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Total for Household [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Household 

Members

Relationship (none, 

spouse, child)

Name Sex Age Grade of 

Child

Person 2 [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Person 3 [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Person 4 [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION

Tester’s current occupation: _______________________________________

Name of tester’s current employer: _______________________________________

First line of tester’s employer’s address: _______________________________________

Second line of tester’s employer’s address: _______________________________________

Length of employment at current job: _______________________________________

Spouse’s current occupation: _______________________________________

Name of spouse’s current employer: _______________________________________

First line of spouse’s employer’s address: _______________________________________

Second line of spouse’s employer’s address: _______________________________________

Spouse’s length of employment at current job: _______________________________________

CURRENT RENTAL HOUSING SITUATION

Amount of current rent: [auto-fill]

Years at Current Residence: _____________

Type of Rental Agreement at Current Residence: [ ] Month-to-Month

[ ] Lease

Tester owns a car? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Other characteristics:

Type of current housing: Renting

Credit standing: Excellent credit standing, no late payments
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 48

History of rent payment at current residence: Have always paid rent on time

Other: Non-smoking; no pets

Just started looking for housing

Name of Child(ren)’s Current School: _______________________________________

SECTION 2: ASSIGNED HOUSING

Information About Housing Provider

Name of housing provider 

(agent, company, and/or complex): [auto-fill]

Address of advertised unit: [auto-fill]

City [auto-fill]

State [auto-fill]

Zip code: [auto-fill]

Phone number: [auto-fill]

E-mail address: [auto-fill]

Name of advertisement source: [auto-fill]

Date of advertisement publication: [auto-fill]

Text of advertisement: [auto-fill]

Advertisement URL: [auto-fill]

TYPE OF HOUSING TO BE REQUESTED

Number of bedrooms to request: [auto-fill]

Minimum number of bedrooms willing to accept: [auto-fill]

Type of unit [auto-fill]

Move-in date to request: [auto-fill]

Maximum rental price: [auto-fill]

AREA PREFERENCE

If you are pressed by the agent, you may state that you are looking in: _______________________________________

Remember: You are always open to considering any areas recommended by the agent!

Reason for moving: [ ] Lived at current apartment long enough, ready for change

[ ] Have to move while landlord is remodeling

[ ] Landlord wants to rent to family member/friend

[ ] Owner selling building; want to start looking now

[ ] Ad sounded like something would be interested in

[ ] Would like to be settled before school starts 

[ ] Living with family member/friend; want own place

[ ] Currently subletting; tenant moving back

[ ] Have recently relocated to the area

[ ] No reason, just would like a new place

SECTION 3: TESTER’S INFORMATION

Tester Name: [auto-fill]

Home Address: [auto-fill]

Phone Number: [auto-fill]

E-mail Address: [auto-fill]

Race: [auto-fill]

National Origin: [auto-fill]
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 49

Gender: [auto-fill]

Age: [auto-fill]

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

General comments: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

This form is complete. [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Timestamp: [auto-fill]

Test released: [auto-fill]
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 50

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-FAMILIES INITIAL CONTACT 

Please contact the housing provider listed on your Rental Assignment Form and request an appointment to view the rental 

housing that was advertised. 

You should always contact the housing provider by telephone unless there is only an e-mail address listed, in which case 

you should contact the housing provider via e-mail. You do not need to make your appointment with any particular agent.

If you are contacting a housing provider via telephone:

• Place the call to the housing provider using your Google Voice number.

To make a call with Google Voice through a computer:

1. Log in to Google Voice at voice.google.com

2. On the left-hand side of the screen, click the red Call button, which will prompt a box to appear.

3. Type in the number you wish to call, and choose the forwarding telephone you’d like to call with from the 

drop down menu.

4. Click Connect. Google will now call the forwarding telephone you selected in Step 3.

5. Pick up the call when it rings. Google will connect you with the number you typed in Step 3.

6. Talk!

To make a call with Google Voice from one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones:

1. Choose one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones, and dial your Google Voice number.

2. When the voicemail begins, hit *

3. Enter voicemail pin, and, when prompted, press 2 to make an outgoing call. 

4. Dial the number you wish to call.

5. Google Voice will connect you.

• You must offer your full name and refer to your assigned household composition during Initial Contact:

1. Testers with children must refer to their marital status, indicate that they have a child/children, and must 

reference their child/children’s age and gender. 

2. Control testers must convey that they would live in the unit by themselves, or, depending on their 

assigned profile, together with their spouse.

• During Initial Contact, you will first inquire about the availability of Assigned Housing, explicitly referring to:

1. The specific advertisement (if applicable) listed on your Rental Assignment Form AND

2. Your assigned number of bedrooms 

• You will NOT explicitly mention a price range, move-in date, or minimum number of bedrooms, but will instead 

refer to these characteristics internally to filter acceptable units from the agent’s response. If, however, you are 

asked directly about your maximum rent, desired move-in date, or minimum number of bedrooms, you may 

respond with this information.

• If there are no available units with your assigned number of bedrooms, ask the housing provider if anything else is 

available, and make an appointment to view any units that: 

1. Have at least the minimum number of bedrooms you are willing to consider

2. Are priced at or under your price maximum

3. Are available up to one week before or after your move-in date

• If you are able to obtain an appointment, please remember to obtain the exact date and time of your appointment 

along with the name of the person with whom you spoke. Also, make sure that you have the exact address and 

directions to the rental housing or rental office.

• If the agent indicates that absolutely no housing is available, thank the agent for his/her assistance and ask for the 

agent’s name if it has not yet been provided. Notify the Test Coordinator after your contact with the agent.

• When contacting the housing provider by telephone, you may make up to three calls. If you do not initially reach 

a person who can provide you with information about available housing, you will ask to be connected with an 

agent who may have that information. If, during the first two calls, you cannot reach a housing provider, do not 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 51

leave a message. If, on the third attempt, you are still unable to reach a housing provider, you will leave a 

message. 

• When leaving a message, you must offer your full name and refer to your assigned household composition:

1. Testers with children must refer to their marital status, indicate that they have a child/children, and must 

reference their child/children’s age and gender. 

2. Control testers must convey that they would live in the unit by themselves, or, depending on their 

assigned profile, together with their spouse.

• Some housing providers use text messages to communicate. If you receive a text message from a housing 

provider, you may respond with a text message. However, you should never initiate communication with a 

housing provider via text. 

• Always thank the person you speak with for their assistance and ask for their name if it has not been provided by 

the end of your call.

If you are contacting a housing provider via e-mail:

• Your Test Coordinator must approve all text in appointment contact e-mails. 

• Use only the e-mail address assigned to you for use on HDS tests.

• Follow all protocols listed above under telephone contact section.

For both telephone and e-mail contact:

• Record every contact you make on a Test Contact Form.

Information to obtain during Initial Contact:

There are 12 crucial pieces of information that you must obtain for every unit that meets your needs that you are told 

about during the Initial Contact stage. Note: Information should be obtained naturally. You should allow the housing 

provider the opportunity to offer as much information as possible before making specific inquiries about the 

following twelve pieces of information:

1. Square footage

2. Floor number

3. Number of bedrooms

4. Rent ($/month)

5. Security deposit ($, if any)

6. Other fees (if applicable, $ and purpose)

7. Lease length (ALL available lease lengths)

8. Date of availability

9. Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list)

10. Whether an application is required (Y/N)

11. Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N, if Yes, how much?)

12. Whether a credit check is required (Y/N)

Complete a Telephone Test Report Form when an appointment call results in contact with a housing provider, and 

complete an Available Rental Unit Form- Telephone for every unit that meets your needs that was mentioned by 

the housing provider. All testers must complete an Initial Contact narrative for their Telephone Test Report Form 

to be considered complete. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-FAMILIES SITE VISITS:

• Inquire about and ask to view the housing you discussed during your appointment call. At the outset of the site 

visit, you must again offer your full name and refer to your household composition, regardless of whether the 

agent conducting the site visit is the same agent you spoke with during Initial Contact.

• After inquiring about the housing discussed during Initial Contact, and regardless of whether such housing is still 

available, you will ALSO ask about the availability of units with your assigned number of bedrooms, ignoring any 

information about availability obtained during your appointment call.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 52

• In the event that neither the unit(s) you discussed during Initial Contact nor units with your assigned number of 

bedrooms are available, you will inquire about any other available housing, and you will express interest in 

viewing units that meet your needs as dictated by your Assigned Housing characteristics. Additionally, if an agent 

independently suggests that you view additional units, you will express interest in viewing units that align with 

your Assigned Housing. Assigned Housing includes units that:

1. Have at least the minimum number of bedrooms you are willing to consider

2. Are priced at or under your price maximum

3. Are available up to one week before or after your move-in date

• If you are asked to sign a guest log or complete a guest card, you may do so using the information from your 

Rental Assignment Form, making sure to use your HDS-assigned e-mail and Google Voice number.

• Do not ask for or complete a rental application. If the agent offers you an application, you should agree to take it 

with you.

• Make sure to obtain the name of the rental agent.

• Allow the rental agent to suggest any follow-up contact. You should not initiate, suggest or offer to make any 

arrangements for future contact with the rental agent. As a tester, you may thank a rental agent for his or her 

assistance, but you must refrain from suggesting that you will get back to the agent or that the agent should 

contact you. 

• Notify your Test Coordinator upon completion of a site visit. 

Information to obtain during a site visit:

During the site visit, you will be responsible for obtaining 13 crucial pieces of information for every unit that you view or 

are told about during a rental visit. These pieces of information are identical to what was obtained during Initial Contact, 

with unit number as the only addition.

1. Unit number

2. Square footage

3. Floor number

4. Number of bedrooms

5. Rent ($/month)

6. Security deposit ($, if any)

7. Other fees (if applicable, $ and purpose)

8. Lease length (ALL available lease lengths)

9. Date of availability

10. Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list)

11. Whether an application is required (Y/N)

12. Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N, if Yes, how much?)

13. Whether a credit check is required (Y/N)
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 53

TEST CONTACT FORM – FWC

Tester ID: _______________________________________

Control Number: _______________________________________

Appointment Contact Form Sequence: _______________________________________

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

Who initiated contact? [ ] Tester initiated to conduct test

[ ] Housing provider

Type of contact: [ ] Phone

[ ] E-mail

[ ] Text Message

Day of the Week Contact was Attempted: [ ] Monday

[ ] Tuesday

[ ] Wednesday

[ ] Thursday

[ ] Friday

[ ] Saturday

[ ] Sunday

Date (mm/dd/yyyy): ___/___/_____

Start Time

Time (hh:mm): ___:___

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

End Time

Time (hh:mm): ___:___

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

Name of housing provider, if given: _______________________________________

Phone number of housing provider 

(If called/text messaged only): _______________________________________

E-mail address of housing provider (if e-mailed only): _______________________________________

SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF CONTACT

Result of the Call:

[1] Spoke to someone regarding housing info or apt.

[2] Wrong number/number no longer in service

[3] No answer/kept ringing/went to voicemail

[4] Left message with a person who did not have information

[5] Housing provider will call back

[6] Told to call back later

[7] Left message on 3rd call

[8] Other

If Other Specify: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

SECTION 3: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only): [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 54

TELEPHONE TEST REPORT FORM – FWC

Site: ______________________________________

CONTROL #: ______________________________________

TESTER ID NUMBER: ______________________________________

SECTION 1: DISPOSITION OF CONTACT

Were you able to reach someone who was able to provide information?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, proceed to Section2. If no, why not? [ ] Housing provider could not be reached after 3 calls

[ ] Wrong number/number no longer in service

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have information and 

never received a call back

[ ] Agent said s/he would call back and never did

[ ] Agent hung up/refused to provide info

[ ] Other

If other, specify ______________________________________

______________________________________

SECTION 2: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING PROVIDER

Did you obtain information about housing? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If not, why not? Proceed to Section 3 after answering 

this question. [ ] Agent suggested we communicate in person

[ ] Other

If other, specify ______________________________________

______________________________________

Assigned Units: How many units were available that had

your assigned number of bedrooms to request, were 

available when you need them, and were at or below 

your price max? _____________

Other Units: Because zero (0) is the number to the 

above question OR the agent volunteered, how many 

units were available that had at least your minimum 

number of bedrooms willing to accept, were available 

when you need them, and were at or below your price 

max (excluding any “assigned units”)? _____________

How many TOTAL rental housing units that meet your 

needs did the agent tell you were available: _____________

Did the agent inform you that any of the following was necessary for the application process?

Application form [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Credit check [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Co-signer [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Criminal background check [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 55

Did the agent offer to send you a copy of the rental application?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by the agent, or not 

obtained by the agent.

I volunteered Agent 

requested

Agent did 

not obtain

a. Your marital status

b. Your household size

c. The number of children you have

d. Your Children’s Age

e. Your Children’s Gender

f. Your or spouse’s income

g. Your or spouse’s source of income

h. Your or spouse’s occupation

i. Your or spouse’s length of employment

j. Your credit standing

k. Your rent history

l. Your address/phone number

m. Other:

If Other, specify: _______________________________________

SECTION 3: Comments

Did the agent make any comments on your qualifications to rent?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following:

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance or Anti-discrimination Laws

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Race or ethnicity [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Children or Families [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Tester’s Household Composition [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

An Occupancy Standard [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 56

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Did the housing provider make any of the following comments?

Noise [ ] Quiet

[ ] Noisy

[ ] No comment

Safety [ ] Safe / low crime

[ ] Dangerous / high crime

[ ] No comment

Schools [ ] Good

[ ] Poor

[ ] No comment

Amenities / Services

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] No comment

SECTION 4: APPOINTMENT INFORMATION

Were you able to obtain an appointment? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If no, why not? (Proceed to Section 5 after answering

this question.) [ ] No units were available/nothing to show

[ ] Agent hung up/refused to schedule appt/did not recommend 

the unit(s)

[ ] Leasing office/agent too busy within the upcoming week

[ ] Other

If other, specify

If yes, proceed with the rest of this section.

Day of the Appointment [ ] Monday

[ ] Tuesday

[ ] Wednesday

[ ] Thursday

[ ] Friday

[ ] Saturday

[ ] Sunday

Date (mm/dd/yyyy) _______________________________________

Time (hh:mm) _______________________________________

AM or PM [ ] AM [ ] PM

Name of the person you have arranged to meet with _______________________________________

Location of meeting – specify type (e.g., agent’s office

or address of specific home) and actual address _______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

SECTION 5: TELEPHONE NARRATIVE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 57

SECTION 6: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 58

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (telephone)– FWC

Control Number: ________________________________________

Tester ID Number: ________________________________________

Available Unit Form Sequence: ________________________________________

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT

Where was the Information obtained

[ ] e-mail from agent

[ ] website

[ ] described by agent over the phone

Address of Available Unit

Number and Street ________________________________________

City ________________________________________

State ________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________

Floor Unit is on _____________

Square footage of unit _____________

Number of bedrooms: _____________

Date Available (mm/dd/yyyy): _____________

Length of Lease? [check all that apply]

[ ] Month-to-month

[ ] Three month

[ ] Six month

[ ] One year

[ ] Two year

[ ] Other

If other, please specify: ________________________________________

SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES

Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit.

What is the rent per month? _____________

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? [ ] 1. Yes – choice of security deposit or surety bond

[ ] 2. Yes – security deposit

[ ] 3. Yes – surety bond

[ ] 4. No

[ ] 5. Did not obtain

If you answered 1, 2, or 3, please report the amount accordingly:

Security deposit amount _____________

Surety bond amount _____________

Is a non-refundable application fee required? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Did not obtain

If yes, what is the total application fee for your household? _____________

Is a non-refundable move-in fee required? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Did not obtain

If yes, what is the total move-in fee for your household? _____________
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 59

Where you told about any other fees or payment at the time of application or move-in?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name of additional fee 1 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________

Name of additional fee 2 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________

Name of additional fee 3 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? ______________

Name of additional fee 4 ______________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________

Financial Incentives/Specials

Were you told about any financial incentives or special if you decide to apply for and rent this unit immediately?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name of financial incentives/specials 1 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? ____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? ____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 2 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 60

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? ____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? ____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 3 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? ____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? ____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 4 _______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? ____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? ____________

SECTION 3: COMMENTS

Did the housing provider make any of the following comments about the building/unit.

Did the agent make any comments suggesting this unit might be more or less suitable for you because of your assigned 

household composition (i.e., because you do or do not have children)? 

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, specify: ________________________________________

________________________________________

Any other comments about this particular unit/building?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, what was the comment? ________________________________________

________________________________________

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

General comments ________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

This form is complete [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Delete this record (TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 61

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM – FWC

Site: ______________________________________

CONTROL #: ______________________________________

TESTER ID NUMBER: ______________________________________

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING PROVIDER

Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known): ______________________________________

Address of leasing office ______________________________________

Suite number (if applicable): ______________________________________

City: ______________________________________

State: ______________________________________

Zip Code: ______________________________________

SECTION 2: DATE AND TIME OF SITE VISIT:

Date (mm/dd/yyyy): ___/__/_____ 

Day of Week: [ ] Monday

[ ] Tuesday

[ ] Wednesday

[ ] Thursday

[ ] Friday

[ ] Saturday

[ ] Sunday

Appointment Time (hh:mm): __ __:__ __ 

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

Time began (office arrival)

Arrival time (hh:mm): ___:___ 

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

Time greeted by staff/agent (if applicable)

Time (hh:mm): ___:___ 

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

Time began meeting with agent (if applicable)

Time (hh:mm): ___:___ 

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

Time ended (departure)

Departure Time (hh:mm): ___:___

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

SECTION 3: INFORMATION ON PERSONS WITH WHOM YOU HAD CONTACT DURING YOUR VISIT 

Name: _______________________________________

Position: _______________________________________

Race/Ethnicity: [ ] White

[ ] Black

[ ] Hispanic

[ ] Asian/Pacific Islander

[ ] American Indian
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 62

[ ] Don’t Know

[ ] Other

Gender: [ ] M

[ ] F

Age Group: [ ] 18-30

[ ] 31-45

[ ] 46-65

[ ] Over 65

Primary Person who provided info: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Is this the same person you spoke with over the phone?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name: _______________________________________

Position: _______________________________________

Race/Ethnicity: [ ] White

[ ] Black

[ ] Hispanic

[ ] Asian/Pacific Islander

[ ] American Indian

[ ] Don’t Know

[ ] Other

Gender: [ ] M

[ ] F

Age Group: [ ] 18-30

[ ] 31-45

[ ] 46-65

[ ] Over 65

Primary Person who provided info: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Is this the same person you spoke with over the phone?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name: _______________________________________

Position: _______________________________________

Race/Ethnicity: [ ] White

[ ] Black

[ ] Hispanic

[ ] Asian/Pacific Islander

[ ] American Indian

[ ] Don’t Know

[ ] Other

Gender: [ ] M

[ ] F
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 63

Age Group: [ ] 18-30

[ ] 31-45

[ ] 46-65

[ ] Over 65

Primary Person who provided info: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Is this the same person you spoke with over the phone?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss housing options? 

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No

If No, why not? _______________________________________

Did you meet with the agent: [ ] Individually (i.e., one-on-one) 

[ ] In a group (i.e., with at least one other homeseeker)

SECTION 4: AVAILABILITY OF UNITS

Assigned Units: How many units were available that had 

your assigned number of bedrooms to request, were 

available when you need them, and were at or below 

your price max? _____________

Other Units: Because zero (0) is the number to the 

above question OR the agent volunteered, how many 

units were available that had at least your minimum 

number of bedrooms willing to accept, were available 

when you need them, and were at or below your price 

max (excluding any “assigned units”)? _____________

How many TOTAL rental housing units that meet your 

needs did the agent tell you were available: _____________

SECTION 5: APPLICATION INFORMATION

Did the agent inform you that any of the following was necessary for the application process?

Application form? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Credit check? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Co-signer? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Criminal background check? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Did the agent ask you to complete an application during your visit? 

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Did the agent give you an application to take with you?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 64

SECTION 6: QUALIFICATIONS

Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by the agent, 

exchanged in an earlier contact, or not obtained by the agent.

I volunteered Agent 

requested

Agent did 

not obtain

a. Your marital status

b. Your household size

c. The number of children you have

d. Your Children’s Age

e. Your Children’s Gender

f. Your or spouse’s income

g. Your or spouse’s source of income

h. Your or spouse’s occupation

i. Your or spouse’s length of employment

j. Your credit standing

k. Your rent history

l. Your address/phone number

m. Other:

If Other, specify: _______________________________________

SECTION 7: COMMENTS

Did the agent make any comments on your qualifications to rent?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, what was the comment? _______________________________________

Did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following: 

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Race or ethnicity [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Children or Families [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Tester’s Household Composition [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

An Occupancy Standard [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, record agent’s comment: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

Noise [ ] Quiet
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 65

[ ] Noisy

[ ] No comment

Safety [ ] Safe / low crime

[ ] Dangerous / high crime

[ ] No comment

Schools [ ] Good

[ ] Poor

[ ] No comment

Maintenance / Services

[ ] Good Services / Amenities

[ ] Poor Services / Amenities

[ ] No comment

SECTION 8: MATERIALS RECEIVED

Did the agent provide you with any of the following items THAT YOU DID NOT ASK FOR? (check all that apply) 

Rental Application [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Business Card [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Brochure [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Listings [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Floor Plan [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Rental/Lease Agreement [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Gift [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Food or beverage [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Other [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If Other, specify: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

SECTION 9: ARRANGEMENTS FOR FUTURE CONTACT

Were arrangements for future contact made? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

If arrangements for future contact were made, please specify:

The agent said that he/she would contact you [ ] Yes

[ ] No

The agent invited you to call him/her [ ] Yes
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 66

[ ] No

Other (specify): [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Specify: _______________________________________

SECTION 10: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Did you receive assistance from a companion or personal aide in completing form?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 67

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (In-Person Site Visit) – FWC

Control Number: ________________________________________

Tester ID Number: ________________________________________

Available Unit Form Sequence: ________________________________________

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT

Address of Available Unit

Number and Street ________________________________________

Unit Number ________________________________________

City ________________________________________

State ________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________

Type of Building: [ ] Apartment Building - 4 or Fewer Units

[ ] Apartment Building - 5 or more

[ ] Single-Family Home

[ ] Mobile Home

How many floors are in the building? ________________________________________

On which floor is the available unit located? ________________________________________

What was the sq. footage of the unit? _____________

Does this unit have your requested number of bedrooms, is available when you need it, and is at or below your price max?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Number of bedrooms: _____________

Date Available (mm/dd/yyyy): _____________

Length of Lease? [check all that apply]

[ ] Month-to-month

[ ] Three month

[ ] Six month

[ ] One year

[ ] Two year

[ ] Other

If other, please specify: ________________________________________

Did you inspect a unit during your site visit? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

What type of unit did you inspect? [ ] Actual available unit 

[ ] Model unit

[ ] Other unit similar to the actual available unit

Did the unit have any of the following INTERIOR physical conditions? 

Broken plaster or peeling paint: [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Discoloration of a floor, wall or ceiling due to water leakage:

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Exposed wiring [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 68

Did the building’s EXTERIOR have any of the following physical conditions?

Sagging roof [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Broken window [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Boarded up windows [ ] Yes

[ ] No

SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES

Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit.

What is the rent per month? _____________

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? [ ] 1. Yes – choice of security deposit or surety bond

[ ] 2. Yes – security deposit

[ ] 3. Yes – surety bond

[ ] 4. No

[ ] 5. Did not obtain

If you answered 1, 2, or 3, please report the amount accordingly:

Security deposit amount _____________

Surety bond amount _____________

Is a non-refundable application fee required? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Did not obtain

If yes, what is the total application fee for your household? _____________

Is a non-refundable move-in fee required? [ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Did not obtain

If yes, what is the total move-in fee for your household? _____________

Where you told about any other fees or payment at the time of application or move-in?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name of additional fee 1 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________

Name of additional fee 2 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 69

Name of additional fee 3 _____________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? ______________

What is the amount of this fee? ______________

Name of additional fee 4 ______________

Is this a one-time or reoccurring monthly fee? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee/payment, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this fee? _____________

Financial Incentives/Specials

Were you told about any financial incentives or special if you decide to apply for and rent this unit immediately?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Name of financial incentives/specials 1 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? _____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 2 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? _____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 3 ________________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? _____________

Name of financial incentives/specials 4 _______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly fee reduction? [ ] one-time/annual

[ ] monthly

If this is a reoccurring monthly fee reduction, how many months? _____________

What is the amount of this incentive or special? _____________
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 70

SECTION 3: COMMENTS

Did the housing provider make any of the following comments about the building/unit.

Did the agent make any comments suggesting this unit might be more or less suitable for you because of your assigned 

household composition (i.e., because you do or do not have children)? 

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, specify: ________________________________________

________________________________________

Any other comments about this particular unit/building?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If yes, what was the comment? ________________________________________

________________________________________

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

General comments ________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

This form is complete [ ] Yes

[ ] No

Delete this record (TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 71

FOLLOW-UP CONTACT FORM – Families with Children

Control Number: _______________________________________

Tester Id Number: _______________________________________

Follow-up Form Sequence Number: _______________________________________

SECTION 1: DOCUMENTING FOLLOW-UP CONTACT

Was there any follow-up contact? [ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Who initiated contact? [ ] Tester

[ ] Housing provider

(Alias) Name of Tester _______________________________________

Name of housing provider/agent (if given) _______________________________________

Type of Contact [ ] Telephone call / voicemail 

[ ] Postal mail

[ ] E-mail

[ ] Text Message

Date and time of contact

Day of the Week: [ ] Monday

[ ] Tuesday

[ ] Wednesday

[ ] Thursday

[ ] Friday

[ ] Saturday

[ ] Sunday

Date (mm/dd/yyyy): _____________ 

Time (hh:mm): _____________

AM or PM: [ ] AM

[ ] PM

What was the stated purpose of the contact? [select “yes” or “no” for all statements]

Personal message from housing provider thanking tester for calling and/or asking if tester has any additional 

questions. [ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Personal message from housing provider asking if tester is still interested in housing.

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Personal message from housing provider wanting to let tester know about more available units.

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Personal message from housing provider wanting to get more information from tester.

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 72

Automated message (call or e-mail) from housing provider thanking tester for calling or visiting and/or 

providing additional general information. [ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Automated message asking tester to take part in a marketing survey or something similar.

[ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Other [ ] Yes 

[ ] No

If Other, specify: _______________________________________ 

SECTION 2: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes 

[ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes

[ ] No
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 73

Appendix E. Analysis Indicators

Data Source Analysis Variables for HDS-Families

Tester Files (tester application and assessments) • Tester Identifiability Assessment

Test Report Form • Able to connect with agent to discuss housing options

(telephone and in-person site visit) • Advertised unit availability that met tester needs

• Number of units available to tester

• Agent comment on FH laws

• Application required

• Invited to complete application

• Credit check required

• Criminal background check required

• Info on renter qualification requested by agent 

• Agent comments on tester’s qualifications to rent

• Agent remarks on race/ethnicity 

• Whether agent offered tester any items (7 items)*

• Able to make an appointment**

• Any arrangements for future contact*

• Number of units inspected by tester*

• Agent remarks about Children

• Agent remarks about unit size or occupancy limits

Available Rental Unit Form • Whether unit was advertised unit

(telephone and in-person site visit) • Whether inspected unit and whether it was actual available unit or other unit*

• Rent amount

• Number of bedrooms

• Number of units in building*

• Length of lease

• Interior condition: broken plaster/peeling paint, exposed wiring, water leakage*

• Exterior condition: sagging roof, boarded windows, broken windows*

• Type & amount of any required fee

• How much security deposit required

• Told of rent specials or incentives; description

• Agent comments about: Noise, Safety, Schools, Maintenance/services, Race or ethnicity

• What floor of the building the unit is on**

• Number of floors in building*

• Square Footage of the Unit**

Follow-up Contact Form • Any follow-up contact

FH = fair housing.

*Data collected during site visit only. **Data collected during telephone contact only.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 74

Appendix F. References

Abravanel, Martin D. 2006. Do We Know More Now? Trends in 

Public Knowledge, Support and Use of Fair Housing Law. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Abravanel, Martin D., and Mary Cunningham. 2002. How 

Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing 

Law. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

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

3-Year Public Use Microdata Sample. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Census Bureau.

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

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

Anderson, Sara, Tama Leventhal, Sandra Newman, and Veronique Dupere. 2014. “Residential Mobility Among Children: 

A Framework for Child and Family Policy,” Cityscape 16 (1): 

5–35.

Aratani, Yumiko, Michelle Chau, Vanessa R. Wight, and Sophia 

Addy. 2011. Rent Burden, Housing Subsidies and the Well-Being of 

Children and Youth. New York: Columbia University, National 

Center for Children in Poverty.

Blake, Glenda, and Jane Greene. 1980. How Restrictive Rental 

Practices Affect Families With Children. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

Policy Development and Research.

Brennan, Maya. 2011. The Impacts of Affordable Housing on 

Education: A Research Summary. Washington, DC: National 

Housing Conference, Center for Housing Policy.

Cohen, Rebecca. 2011. The Impacts of Affordable Housing on 

Health: A Research Summary. Washington, DC: National Housing Conference, Center for Housing Policy.

Cohen, Rebecca, and Keith Wardrip. 2011. Should I Stay or 

Should I Go? Exploring the Effects of Housing Instability and Mobility 

on Children. Washington, DC: National Housing Conference, 

Center for Housing Policy.

Coley, Rebekah L., Tama Leventhal, and Alicia Doyle Lynch. 

2014. “Profiles of Neighborhood Contexts Among Low-Income 

Families: Links With Children’s Well-Being,” Cityscape 16 (1): 

37–60.

Colten, Mary, and Robert Marans. 1982. “Restrictive Rental 

Practices and Their Impact on Families,” Population Research 

and Policy Review 1 (1): 43–58.

Desmond, Matthew. 2012. “Eviction and Reproduction of 

Urban Poverty,” American Journal of Sociology 118 (1): 88–133.

Fairfax County Human Rights Commission. 2010. Fair Housing: 

Telephone Testing Report Disability and Familial Status. Fairfax, 

VA: Fairfax County Human Rights Commission, Fair Housing 

Program.

Friedman, Samantha, Angela Reynolds, Susan Scovill, Florence 

R. Brassier, Ron Campbell, and McKenzie Ballou. 2013. An 

Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

Galster, George C. 2014. How Neighborhoods Affect Health, WellBeing, and Young People’s Futures. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.

Galster, George C., and Peter Constantine. 1991. “Discrimination 

Against Female-Headed Households in Rental Housing: Theory 

and Exploratory Evidence,” Review of Social Economy 49 (1): 

76–100.

Goebel, Paul R., and Sidney B. Rosenberg. 1992. “Economic 

Analysis of the Impact of Anti-Discrimination Legislation Based 

on Familial Status,” Policy Sciences 25 (2): 161–174.

Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) of Harvard University. 

2013. America’s Rental Housing, Evolving Markets and Needs. 

Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard 

University.

Levy, Diane K., Claudia L. Aranda, Margery A. Turner, Rob 

Pitingolo, Rob Santos, Helen Ho, and Doug Wissoker. 2015. 

Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market Against People Who 

Are Deaf and People Who Use Wheelchairs: National Study Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

Marans, Robert, Mary E. Colten, Robert M. Groves, and Barbara 

Thomas. 1980. Restrictive Rental Practices Affecting Families With 

Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development; U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Marlay, Matthew C., and Alison K. Fields. 2010. Seasonality of 

Moves and the Duration and Tenure of Residence: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and 

Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN RENTAL HOUSING MARKETS: FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY 75

Massey, Douglas S. 2001. “Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Conditions in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” In America 

Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, edited by Neil 

J. Smelser, William J. Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington, 

DC: National Academies Press: 391–434.

National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA). 2009. For Rent: No 

Kids! How Internet Housing Advertisements Perpetuate Discrimination. Washington, DC: National Fair Housing Alliance.

———. 2011. The Big Picture: How Fair Housing Organizations 

Challenge Systemic and Institutionalized Discrimination: 2011 Fair 

Housing Trends Report. Washington, DC: National Fair Housing 

Alliance.

———. 2012. Fair Housing in a Changing Nation: 2012 Fair 

Housing Trends Report. Washington, DC: National Fair Housing 

Alliance.

———. 2013. Modernizing the Fair Housing Act for the 21st 

Century: 2013 Fair Housing Trends Report. Washington, DC: 

National Fair Housing Alliance.

Newman, Sandra J., and Scott Holupka. 2014. Affordable 

Housing Is Associated With Greater Spending on Child Enrichment 

and Stronger Cognitive Development. Chicago: MacArthur 

Foundation.

Sandstrom, Heather, and Sandra Huerta. 2013. The Negative 

Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

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

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1998: The First Decade,” 

Cityscape 4 (3): 57–78.

Schmit, Julie. 2012. “Home Rentals: The New American 

Dream?” USA Today, June 6. http://www.usatoday30.usatoday.

com/money/economy/housing/story/2012-06-05/are-homerentals-the-new-american-dream/55402648/1.

Simms, Margaret. 1980. Families and Housing Markets: Obstacles 

to Locating Suitable Housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Tester, Griff. 2006. “Intersectionality and Disadvantage: An Analysis of Sex and Familial Status Discrimination in the Housing 

Market.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, August 11.

Turner, Margery, and Stephen Ross. 2003a. Discrimination 

in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2—Asians and Pacific 

Islanders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development.

———. 2003b. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: 

Phase 3—Native Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Turner, Margery, Stephen Ross, George Galster, and John 

Yinger. 2002. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: 

Phase 1. 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.

Turner Margery, Raymond Struyk, and John Yinger. 1991. 

Housing Discrimination Study Synthesis. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

1998. “Fair Housing Enforcement—Occupancy Standards; 

Statement of Policy; Notice.” 63 Federal Register 245 

(December 22): 70982–70987.

———. 2000. Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Plan. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

Wienk, Ronald E., Clifford E. Reid, John C. Simonson, and 

Frederick J. Eggers. 1979. Measuring Discrimination in American 

Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Wood, Michelle, Jennifer Turnham, and Gregory Mills. 2008. 

“Housing Affordability and Family Well-Being: Results From 

the Housing Voucher Evaluation,” Housing Policy Debate 19 (2): 

367–412.